Neumann v. Colvin

Filing 23

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 2/12/16 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's 11 motion for summary judgment be granted. Defendant's 21 motion to remand for further administrative proceedings be granted. This matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings which shall include but not be limited to re-evaluation of the medical opinion evidence, including theopinions of treating providers, and re-evaluation of plaintiffs testimony of subjective complaints. Matter referred to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC PAUL NEUMANN,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-CV-2190-KJM-CMK

Plaintiff,
vs.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

15
Defendant.
16
/
17
18

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action under

19

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social

20

Security. Pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 11);

21

and (2) defendant’s motion to remand (Doc. 21).

22

In his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff claims that the Administrative Law

23

Judge (“ALJ”) erred in the following three ways: (1) the ALJ failed to provide specific and

24

legitimate reasons for rejecting treating medical source opinions; (2) the ALJ improperly rejected

25

plaintiff’s testimony; and (3) the ALJ improperly rejected complaints of fatigue. Defendant

26

concedes that error occurred and argues that the matter should be remanded. According to
1

1
2

plaintiff, he is entitled to a direct award of benefits.
Generally, a social security cases should be remanded for further proceedings if

3

such proceeding can remedy the defects in the original agency proceedings. See Lewin v.

4

Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 775 F.3d

5

1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014). The Social Security Act, however, empowers the court to affirm,

6

modify, or reverse a decision by the Commissioner “with or without remanding the cause for a

7

rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth

8

Circuit has articulated a three-part test for determining when it is appropriate to order a direct

9

award of benefits. See id. The test is met if all of the following are true: (1) the record has been

10

fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no purpose; (2) the ALJ has

11

failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, whether claimant testimony or

12

medical opinions; and (3) the ALJ on remand would be required to find the claimant disabled if

13

the improperly rejected or discredited evidence were credited as true. See id. Even if this test

14

met, district courts have flexibility in determining whether to order a direct award of benefits.

15

See id. at 1021. Specifically, a direct award of benefits is not appropriate when “an evaluation of

16

the record as a whole creates serious doubt that a claimant is, in fact, disabled.” Id.; see also

17

Strauss v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 635 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that a claimant “is

18

not entitled to benefits under the statute unless the claimant is, in fact, disabled, no matter how

19

egregious the ALJ’s errors may be”).

20

In this case, the ALJ’s analysis concluded at the first step in the sequential

21

disability analysis when the ALJ concluded that plaintiff does not have a severe impairment. As

22

defendant notes:

23
24
25

. . .The ALJ did not make an initial residual functional capacity
(RFC) finding, or a finding as to whether Plaintiff can perform his prior
relevant work or other work. As a result, the record is incomplete and
does not include sufficient information to evaluate Plaintiff’s disability.
The agency should be given the opportunity to consider the remaining
steps of the five-step sequential evaluation process in the first instance.

26
2

1

The court agrees and finds that an order for direct payment of benefits is inappropriate in this

2

case because the record has not been fully developed. See Garrison, 759 F.3d 995.

3

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 11) be granted;

5

2.

Defendant’s motion to remand for further administrative proceedings

6
7

(Doc. 21) be granted; and
3.

This matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings which

8

shall include but not be limited to re-evaluation of the medical opinion evidence, including the

9

opinions of treating providers, and re-evaluation of plaintiff’s testimony of subjective complaints.

10

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

11

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

12

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

13

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

14

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.

15

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16
17
18
19

DATED: February 12, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3