Ravencroft v. Kijakazi, No. 4:2020cv05187 - Document 17 (E.D. Wash. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING FOR ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS; denying 14 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Case is CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge James A. Goeke. (LAS, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ravencroft v. Kijakazi Doc. 17 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 1 Mar 30, 2022 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 5 6 7 KRISTINA R., No. 4:20-CV-05187-JAG Plaintiff, 8 9 v. 10 11 12 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,1 13 Defendant. 14 15 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING FOR ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT are cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF 16 No. 13, 14. Attorney D. James Tree represents Kristina R. (Plaintiff); Special 17 Assistant United States Attorney Lars Nelson represents the Commissioner of 18 Social Security (Defendant). The parties have consented to proceed before a 19 magistrate judge. ECF No. 4. After reviewing the administrative record and the 20 briefs filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 21 Judgment; DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and 22 REMANDS the matter to the Commissioner for additional proceedings pursuant to 23 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 24 25 1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on 26 July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 27 Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew M. Saul as the defendant in this suit. No 28 further action need be taken to continue this suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 JURISDICTION Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income on May 18, 3 2017, alleging disability since November 30, 2016, due to chronic abdominal pain, 4 PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Tr. 98-99. The application was denied initially and 5 upon reconsideration. Tr. 134-42, 146-52. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Donna 6 Walker held a hearing on September 6, 2019, Tr. 40-96, and issued an unfavorable 7 decision on October 7, 2019. Tr. 18-32. Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ’s 8 decision by the Appeals Council and the Appeals Council denied the request for 9 review on August 13, 2020. Tr. 1-5. The ALJ’s October 2019 decision is the final 10 decision of the Commissioner, which is appealable to the district court pursuant to 11 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review on October 9, 12 2020. ECF No. 1. 13 STATEMENT OF FACTS 14 Plaintiff was born in 1977 and was 39 years old when she filed her 15 application. Tr. 30. She has a high school diploma and some college classes, and 16 has worked as a telemarketer, customer service clerk, agricultural produce sorter, 17 and order clerk. Tr. 72, 86-87, 780. In 2013 she developed abdominal pain of 18 unknown origin and over the next several years underwent a number of procedures 19 that provided little or no relief, including a hysterectomy, cholecystectomy, and 20 intervention for kidney stones. Tr. 73-74, 368, 538-40. She was eventually 21 diagnosed with an endometrial mass in 2018 and had surgery in March of that year. 22 Tr. 802-03, 927-28. She experienced complications following the surgery, 23 particularly with wound healing, and had numerous emergency visits and eventual 24 placement of a wound VAC for several months. Tr. 843, 863, 898, 977, 986, 1125- 25 70, 1197-1217. By November 2018, her abdominal pain had mostly resolved other 26 than some nerve damage from surgery. Tr. 80, 1221. Plaintiff has also struggled 27 with depression and anxiety, related to her history of abuse, the removal of her 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 2 1 younger daughter from her care, and due to her medical problems. Tr. 81-82, 349, 2 704. 3 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in 5 medical testimony, and resolving ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 6 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ’s determinations of law are reviewed de novo, with 7 deference to a reasonable interpretation of the applicable statutes. McNatt v. Apfel, 8 201 F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000). The decision of the ALJ may be reversed 9 only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error. 10 Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is 11 defined as being more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Id. at 12 1098. Put another way, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a 13 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. 14 Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). If the evidence is susceptible to more than one 15 rational interpretation, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the 16 ALJ. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1097; Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 17 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). If substantial evidence supports the 18 administrative findings, or if conflicting evidence supports a finding of either 19 disability or non-disability, the ALJ’s determination is conclusive. Sprague v. 20 Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-1230 (9th Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, a decision 21 supported by substantial evidence will be set aside if the proper legal standards 22 were not applied in weighing the evidence and making the decision. Brawner v. 23 Secretary of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 24 25 SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process 26 for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a); Bowen v. 27 Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987). In steps one through four, the claimant 28 bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability. Tackett, 180 F.3d ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 3 1 at 1098-1099. This burden is met once a claimant establishes that a physical or 2 mental impairment prevents the claimant from engaging in past relevant work. 20 3 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). If a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the ALJ 4 proceeds to step five, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show (1) the 5 claimant can make an adjustment to other work; and (2) the claimant can perform 6 specific jobs that exist in the national economy. Batson v. Commissioner of Social 7 Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193-1194 (9th Cir. 2004). If a claimant cannot make 8 an adjustment to other work in the national economy, the claimant will be found 9 disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). 10 ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS 11 On October 7, 2019, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not 12 13 14 15 disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. Tr. 18-32. At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date. Tr. 20. At step two, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe 16 impairments: abdominal pain, chronic; status-post hysterectomy; endometrial 17 mass, status-post removal; diabetes mellitus; obesity; insomnia; major depressive 18 disorder, unspecified; generalized anxiety disorder, unspecified; unspecified 19 personality disorder; and PTSD vs. trauma- and stressor-related disorder. Id. 20 At step three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 21 combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of 22 the listed impairments. Tr. 21-24. 23 24 25 26 27 28 The ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) and found she could perform a range of light work, with the following limitations: She can occasionally balance, climb ramps or stairs, stoop (defined as bend at the waist), or kneel, but should never crouch (defined as bend at the knees), crawl, or climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The claimant has no limitations regarding the ability ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to handle, finger or feel, or reach in all directions, including overhead. The claimant has no limitations in the ability to see, hear or communicate. Regarding the environment, the claimant has no limitations, except she should avoid all exposure to hazards, such as dangerous machinery and unprotected heights. Regarding mental abilities, the claimant has the ability to understand, remember or apply information that is simple and routine, commensurate with SVP2. Regarding interaction with others, the claimant would work best in an environment in proximity to, but not close cooperation, with coworkers and supervisors. The claimant must work in an environment away from the public. Regarding the ability to concentrate, persist or maintain pace, the claimant has the ability, with legally required breaks, to focus attention on work activities and stay on task at a sustained rate, complete tasks in a timely manner, sustain an ordinary routine, regularly attend work and work a full day without needing more than the allotted number or length of rest periods. Regarding the ability to adapt or manage, the claimant would work best in an environment that is routine and predictable, but does have the ability to respond appropriately, distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable work performance, or be aware of normal hazards and take appropriate precautions. Tr. 24. At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff was capable of performing her past relevant work as an agricultural produce sorter. Tr. 30. Despite making dispositive step four findings, the ALJ continued with the sequential evaluation and made alternative step five findings. The ALJ found that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity, Plaintiff could perform jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy, specifically identifying the representative occupations of marking clerk, routing clerk, tagger, and photocopy machine operator. Tr. 30-31. 27 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 5 1 The ALJ thus concluded Plaintiff was not under a disability within the 2 meaning of the Social Security Act at any time from the date the application was 3 filed through the date of the decision. Tr. 32. 4 ISSUES 5 The question presented is whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 6 decision denying benefits and, if so, whether that decision is based on proper legal 7 standards. 8 Plaintiff contends the Commissioner erred by (1) improperly rejecting 9 Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; and (2) not properly evaluating the medical 10 opinions. 11 12 13 14 DISCUSSION 1. Plaintiff’s Subjective Statements Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by improperly rejecting her subjective complaints. ECF No. 13 at 6-10. It is the province of the ALJ to make determinations regarding a claimant’s 15 16 subjective statements. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). 17 However, the ALJ’s findings must be supported by specific, cogent reasons. 18 Rashad v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1990). Once the claimant 19 produces medical evidence of an underlying medical impairment, the ALJ may not 20 discredit testimony as to the severity of an impairment merely because it is 21 unsupported by medical evidence. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 22 1998). Absent affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting 23 the claimant’s testimony must be “specific, clear and convincing.” Smolen v. 24 Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 25 (9th Cir. 1996). “General findings are insufficient: rather the ALJ must identify 26 what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s 27 complaints.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 834; Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 28 1993). ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 6 1 The ALJ concluded Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could 2 reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms; however, 3 Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of 4 those symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other 5 evidence in the record. Tr. 25. The ALJ found Plaintiff’s complaints were 6 undermined by inconsistencies in the record (such as reports that she was feeling 7 better and was happy), her activities, and the objective findings in the medical 8 record. Tr. 25-26. 9 Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s discussion is not sufficiently specific and that the 10 ALJ effectively cherry-picked notes of improvement that are not reflective of the 11 record as a whole. ECF No. 13 at 6-10. Defendant argues the ALJ reasonably 12 considered evidence of improvement with treatment, Plaintiff’s inconsistent 13 activities, and the normal mental and physical exams. ECF No. 14 at 4-10. 14 The Court finds the ALJ failed to offer clear and convincing reasons for 15 disregarding Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. An ALJ may consider the types of 16 treatment a claimant receives and the effectiveness of that treatment in assessing a 17 claimant’s subjective allegations. Social Security Ruling 16-3p. However, the fact 18 that a person makes some improvement “does not mean that the person’s 19 impairments no longer seriously affect [their] ability to function in a workplace.” 20 Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ noted two 21 points in the record where Plaintiff reported her pain was extremely well controlled 22 and that she felt much better after treatment; however, the context of the records 23 does not support the ALJ’s inference that these notes undermine Plaintiff’s overall 24 reports. Tr. 26. The first note of Plaintiff’s pain being “extremely well controlled” 25 was the day after her extensive surgery to remove her endometrial mass, and was 26 in reference to her post-surgical pain. Tr. 927-28, 950. While the surgery helped 27 her overall physical condition, which Plaintiff admitted at hearing, she had 28 significant complications with her recovery in the months following surgery, as ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 7 1 discussed above. The second note of Plaintiff appearing well, in no distress and 2 feeling much better after treatment was in reference to an acute injury she received, 3 which was unrelated to her claim of disability. Tr. 989-92.2 4 Similarly, the ALJ cited a single mental health treatment note from the very 5 end of the relevant period as evidence of inconsistencies in the record undermining 6 Plaintiff’s reports. Plaintiff’s report that she felt better at one appointment does not 7 demonstrate inconsistency with her overall claims of mental health difficulties, 8 particularly considering the previous month she had endorsed high levels of 9 anxiety and depression around caretaking for her injured mother. Tr. 1336. “While 10 ALJs obviously must rely on examples to show why they do not believe that a 11 claimant is credible, the data points they choose must in fact constitute examples of 12 a broader development to satisfy the applicable ‘clear and convincing’ standard.” 13 Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1018 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ’s citations for 14 evidence of Plaintiff doing well and improving with treatment are not reflective of 15 the record as a whole and thus the conclusion is not supported by substantial 16 evidence. 17 A claimant’s daily activities may support an adverse credibility finding if the 18 claimant’s activities contradict her other testimony. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 19 639 (9th Cir. 2007). Though inconsistent daily activities may provide a 20 justification for rejecting symptom testimony, “the mere fact that a plaintiff has 21 carried on certain daily activities ... does not in any way detract from her credibility 22 as to her overall disability.” Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 594 (9th Cir. 23 2004). The ALJ found Plaintiff’s reported activities were not fully consistent with 24 her allegations, noting that she hosted Thanksgiving in 2018, had a boyfriend in 25 Wisconsin who visited her, and babysat. Tr. 25-26. The Court finds substantial 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff also returned to the ER later that same day after her wound reopened. Tr. 905-08. ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 8 1 evidence does not support the ALJ’s analysis. The record contains virtually no 2 evidence of Plaintiff’s activities regarding babysitting—how often or for how long 3 she watched a child, the age of the child, what her responsibilities were, or whether 4 she had any assistance. Tr. 1276, 1293. The single event of hosting Thanksgiving 5 in her own home for an unknown number of guests is also not inconsistent with 6 Plaintiff’s reports of difficulty leaving her home or functioning in a group of 7 strangers. The ability to interact with close friends and family in the home or 8 maintain a long-distance relationship are not reflective of an ability to work full- 9 time in a standard workplace. The ALJ failed to explain how these activities are 10 inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations. To the extent the ALJ implied Plaintiff’s allegations were not supported by 11 12 the objective medical evidence, this is an insufficient basis on its own for 13 disregarding subjective reports. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 834 (the ALJ may not 14 discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they 15 are unsupported by objective evidence). On remand the ALJ will reconsider 16 Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. 17 2. 18 19 Medical Opinions Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical opinion evidence. ECF No. 13 at 10-20. 20 For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, new regulations apply that 21 change the framework for how an ALJ must weigh medical opinion evidence. 22 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 2017 WL 23 168819, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844 (Jan. 18, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c. The new 24 regulations provide the ALJ will no longer give any specific evidentiary weight to 25 medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings, including those from 26 treating medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a). Instead, the ALJ will consider 27 the persuasiveness of each medical opinion and prior administrative medical 28 finding, regardless of whether the medical source is an Acceptable Medical Source. ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 9 1 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c). The ALJ is required to consider multiple factors, 2 including supportability, consistency, the source’s relationship with the claimant, 3 any specialization of the source, and other factors (such as the source’s familiarity 4 with other evidence in the file or an understanding of Social Security’s disability 5 program). Id. The regulations make clear that the supportability and consistency of 6 the opinion are the most important factors, and the ALJ must articulate how they 7 considered those factors in determining the persuasiveness of each medical opinion 8 or prior administrative medical finding. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b). The ALJ may 9 explain how they considered the other factors, but is not required to do so, except 10 in cases where two or more opinions are equally well-supported and consistent 11 with the record. Id. 12 13 14 Supportability and consistency are further explained in the regulations: (1) Supportability. The more relevant the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more persuasive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be. (2) Consistency. The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c). a. Dr. N.K. Marks Plaintiff attended four consultative psychological exams with Dr. Marks from 2015-2018. Tr. 762-83. Dr. Marks diagnosed Plaintiff with unspecified anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, trauma- and stressor-related disorder and ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 10 1 personality disorder and assessed various mild, moderate, and marked limitations. 2 Id. 3 The ALJ found the parts of the opinions assessing mild to moderate limits 4 were persuasive, as they were consistent with the objective mental status exams 5 showing good concentration, improving memory, and a cooperative demeanor. 6 Tr. 27. However, the ALJ found the marked ratings to be inconsistent with 7 Plaintiff’s reports to her treating providers of improved mood and functioning and 8 the objective findings on Dr. Marks’ exams. Id. The ALJ further found Plaintiff’s 9 activities of personal care, household chores, and babysitting to be in contrast with 10 11 the marked limitations. Id. Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s analysis is insufficient, as she relied on 12 observations of improvement after Dr. Marks’ assessments, and selectively cited 13 the normal findings on the mental status exams while ignoring the abnormal 14 findings, particularly in the 2015 and 2016 exams. ECF No. 13 at 11-12. She 15 further argues that none of the activities the ALJ identified contradict Dr. Marks’ 16 opinions. Id. at 12-13. Defendant argues the ALJ reasonably considered the factors 17 of supportability and consistency, noting Dr. Marks’ opinions were not supported 18 by her own exam findings and were inconsistent with other evidence in the record. 19 ECF No. 14 at 12-13. 20 The Court finds the ALJ’s analysis is not supported by substantial evidence. 21 While the ALJ is correct that Dr. Marks’ reports do contain some normal findings 22 on mental status exams, they also contain abnormal findings, such as depressed 23 and anxious mood and affect and tearfulness. Tr. 766, 771-72, 777, 782. The ALJ 24 did not explain how the other normal findings contradicted the assessed 25 limitations. 26 The ALJ’s findings of “reports of improved mood and functioning to 27 treating sources from Spring 2018 to January 2019” is not supported by substantial 28 evidence. The records cited do include the occasional report of improvement, but ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 11 1 also contain evidence of ongoing depression and anxiety, with fluctuations from 2 month to month. Tr. 1254, 1263, 1268, 1276, 1278, 1284, 1287, 1300. As 3 discussed above, the fact that a person makes some improvement “does not mean 4 that the person’s impairments no longer seriously affect [their] ability to function 5 in a workplace.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001). 6 Notably, most of these notes also occur after Dr. Marks’ opinions were offered. 7 The ALJ does not appear to consider the possibility that the earlier opinions could 8 have been an accurate reflection of Plaintiff’s abilities at that time, with later 9 improvement, possibly supporting a limited period of disability. 10 Finally, the Court finds none of the activities identified by the ALJ 11 demonstrate any inconsistency with Dr. Marks’ opinions. As discussed above, the 12 record contains no evidence regarding Plaintiff’s childcare duties. Her ability to 13 care for herself and her household at times is not inconsistent with Dr. Marks’ 14 opinions, which comment on Plaintiff’s ability to work full-time outside of the 15 home. 16 On remand the ALJ will reconsider Dr. Marks’ opinions. 17 b. 18 Plaintiff further assigns error to the ALJ’s discussion of the opinions from Other Medical Opinions 19 two treating providers, Joshua Hughes and Maria Castillo, and consultative 20 examiner Patricia Zeisler. ECF No. 13 at 13-18. The ALJ discounted these 21 opinions largely based on the testimony of the medical experts at the hearing. 22 Tr. 27-29. As this claim is being remanded for reconsideration of other evidence, 23 the ALJ shall reassess each of the five steps of the sequential evaluation process 24 and all of the medical opinions. 25 CONCLUSION 26 Plaintiff argues the decision should be reversed and remanded for the 27 payment of benefits. The Court has the discretion to remand the case for additional 28 evidence and findings or to award benefits. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 12 1 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court may award benefits if the record is fully developed and 2 further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Id. Remand is 3 appropriate when additional administrative proceedings could remedy defects. 4 Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, the Court 5 finds that further development is necessary for a proper determination. 6 The ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. On remand, the 7 ALJ shall reevaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the medical evidence of 8 record, making findings on each of the five steps of the sequential evaluation 9 process, obtain supplemental testimony from a vocational expert as needed, and 10 take into consideration any other evidence or testimony relevant to Plaintiff’s 11 disability claim. 12 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 13 1. 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED IN PART. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is DENIED. 3. The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for additional proceedings consistent with this Order. 19 4. An application for attorney fees may be filed by separate motion. 20 The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide a copy 21 to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. Judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff and 22 the file shall be CLOSED. 23 DATED March 30, 2022. 24 25 26 _____________________________________ JAMES A. GOEKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
