Love v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER: The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for an award of benefits. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 3/21/2018. (REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jeffery Jay Love,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-03267-PHX-DLR

Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,

13
14

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff Jeffery Love appeals the Commissioner of the Social Security

17

Administration’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his application for Supplemental Security

18

Income (“SSI”) benefits. The Court will eschew a lengthy recitation of the administrative

19

proceedings because, in response to Love’s opening brief, the Commissioner concedes

20

error and requests that the Court remand this case for further administrative proceedings.

21

The sole disputed issue is whether further proceedings are necessary or whether the Court

22

should remand for an immediate award of benefits.

23

When the Commissioner’s decision is tainted by legal error or not supported by

24

substantial evidence, the Court has discretion to reverse and remand either for further

25

proceedings or for an award of benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). With that said, “[a]n

26

automatic award of benefits in a disability case is a rare and prophylactic exception to the

27

well-established ordinary remand rule.” Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir.

28

2017). In deciding whether to remand for an award of benefits, the Court considers the

1

following three factors: (1) did the ALJ fail to provide legally sufficient reasons for

2

rejecting evidence, (2) has the record has been fully developed and would further

3

proceedings serve no useful purpose, and (3) is it clear from the record that the ALJ

4

would be required to find the claimant disabled were such evidence credited? Triechler

5

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 775 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2014).

6

apply this so-called “credit-as-true” rule if evaluation of the record as a whole creates

7

serious doubt that the claimant is, in fact, disabled. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d

8

995, 1021 (9th Cir. 2014).

The Court need not

9

The Commissioner concedes that the first element is met, but argues that further

10

proceedings are needed so that the ALJ may: (1) “update the evidence of record,” (2)

11

“reconsider the medical opinion evidence,” (3) “reevaluate the nature and severity of

12

Plaintiff’s impairments at step two,” (4) “reconsider the reliability of Plaintiff’s

13

symptoms allegations,” and (5) “reassess Plaintiff’s [Residual Functional Capacity

14

(“RFC”)].” (Doc. 21 at 4-5.) These tasks do not appear to be outstanding issues, and

15

instead reflect the Commissioner’s desire for a redo. But Ninth Circuit “precedent and

16

the objectives of the credit-as-true rule foreclose the argument that a remand for the

17

purpose of allowing the ALJ to have a mulligan qualifies as a remand for a ‘useful

18

purpose.’” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021-22 (collecting cases).

19

The Commissioner also argues that further administrative proceedings are

20

appropriate because Love submitted additional evidence to the Appeals Council showing

21

that he was evaluated for multiple sclerosis in November 2015, after the ALJ’s non-

22

disability determination in March of that year. But the Appeals Council considered this

23

evidence and concluded, evidently without substantial rationale or support, that it would

24

not change the outcome of the case. Moreover, as Love points out, although his multiple

25

sclerosis diagnosis post-dated the ALJ’s decision, evidence of the symptoms associated

26

with the condition already was present in the record. (See AR 448-49, 452, 455.)

27

Love filed his application for SSI benefits over five years ago in October 2012.

28

The Commissioner admittedly erred in evaluating the medical opinion testimony, yet now

-2-

1

seeks another crack at assessing Love’s SSI application. Having considered the parties’

2

arguments and the cited record evidence, the Court finds that further administrative

3

proceedings would not serve a useful purpose or advance the objectives of the credit-as-

4

true rule. Accordingly,

5
6
7

IT IS ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for an award of benefits.
Dated this 21st day of March, 2018.

8
9
10
11
12

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-