White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 16

ORDER: The ALJ's decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED for an award of benefits. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 11/15/2023. (KJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael David White,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,

13

No. CV-21-02108-PHX-DLR
ORDER

Defendant.

14
15

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff Michael White seeks judicial review of the

16

Social Security Administration’s decision denying his application for Supplemental

17

Security Income benefits. The Court must affirm the agency’s decision if it is free of

18

harmful legal error and supported by substantial evidence. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625,

19

630 (9th Cir. 2007). After reviewing the record, the Court finds clearly harmful error

20

requiring a remand for an automatic award of benefits.

21

White argues that the agency’s administrative law judge (“ALJ”) made harmful

22

errors in his weighing of White’s symptom testimony and the medical opinion evidence,

23

but the Court does not need to resolve those issues in order to rule in White’s favor. For

24

purposes of this order, the Court can assume the ALJ properly weighed White’s symptom

25

testimony and the medical opinion evidence. The Court can even assume the ALJ properly

26

formulated White’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). Still, the agency’s decision is

27

unsupportable.

28

The ALJ asked the vocational expert whether an individual with White’s RFC could

1

sustain White’s past relevant work as a software engineer, then asked if such an individual

2

could sustain any other work within the national economy. (AR. 17-18.) The vocational

3

expert opined that an individual with White’s impairments could not sustain work as a

4

software engineer or any other full-time work in the national economy. (AR. 18.) In his

5

written decision, the ALJ said he agreed with the vocational expert’s opinions. Yet, the

6

ALJ inexplicably reached the opposite conclusion, finding White was not disabled because

7

he could sustain his past work as a software engineer. (AR. 83.) The ALJ’s conclusion is

8

clear error because it contradicts the evidentiary record and the opinion of the vocational

9

expert with which the ALJ said he agreed. And this error is harmful because, had the ALJ’s

10

decision reflected his agreement with the vocational expert, he would have found White

11

disabled due to his inability to sustain his past relevant work or other work in the national

12

economy. Although, an “automatic award of benefits in a disability benefits case is a rare

13

and prophylactic exception to the well-established ordinary remand rule” Leon v. Berryhill,

14

880 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2017), here the Court must remand for an award of benefits

15

because it is clear that the ALJ’s factual findings compel the conclusion that White is

16

disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

17

IT IS ORDERED that the ALJ’s decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED for

18

an award of benefits. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate

19

this case.

20

Dated this 15th day of November, 2023.

21
22
23
24
25

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

26
27
28

-2-