Cuzick v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER Re: Additional Briefing; Plaintiff to file supplemental brief by 7/10/14; Defendant to file supplemental brief by 7/24/14; Plaintiff will have until 7/31/14 to file any reply; signed by Judge J Richard Creatura. (DN)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

RAYMOND A. CUZICK,

9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-cv-05469 RBL-JRC
ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL
BRIEFING

v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration.
Defendant.

14

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court may set aside the Commissioner's
15
16
17
18

denial of social security benefits if the ALJ's findings are based on legal error or not
supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d
1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir.

19 1999)). Regarding the question of whether or not substantial evidence supports the
20 findings by the ALJ, the Court should “‘review the administrative record as a whole,
21 weighing both the evidence that supports and that which detracts from the ALJ’s
22 conclusion.’” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam)
23 (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)).
24

ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL BRIEFING - 1

1

In addition, the Court “‘must independently determine whether the

2 Commissioner’s decision is (1) free of legal error and (2) is supported by substantial
3 evidence.’” See Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Moore v.
4
5

Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)); Smolen v. Chater,
80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996).

6

After considering and reviewing the record in accordance with this independent
7

duty, the Court has identified an issue that is not addressed specifically in either
8
9
10

plaintiff’s or defendant’s briefing. Nevertheless, plaintiff has generally raised the issue
by alleging that defendant improperly evaluated the medical evidence (see Dkt. No. 12, p.

11 1). Therefore, the Court directs the parties to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed six12 pages, addressing, more specifically, the following issues:
13

(1)

Whether or not the ALJ committed legal error when failing to address the

14

opinion of reviewing medical expert Kenneth Asher, PhD, that plaintiff

15

would require more than the usual number of breaks to “perform simple,

16

routine tasks for an eight-hour day, 40-hour work week” (Tr. 96).

17

(2)

Whether or not the ALJ committed legal error when failing to include Dr.

18

Asher’s opinion regarding plaintiff’s need for additional breaks when

19

assessing plaintiff’s RFC, and whether or not this error was consequential

20

to the ultimate nondisability determination.

21
22

Plaintiff shall file his supplemental brief on or before July 10, 2014.

23

Defendant shall file her supplemental brief on or before July 24, 2014.

24

ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL BRIEFING - 2

1

Plaintiff shall have until July 31, 2014, to file any reply (not to exceed 3 pages).

2

DATED this 25th day of June, 2014.

3
4
5
6

A

7
8

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL BRIEFING - 3