Case ID: f-appx_431/html/0597-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Diane ROXBURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-35370.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 4, 2011.
    
    Filed May 6, 2011.
    Tim Wilborn, Wilborn Law Office, PC, Oregon City, OR, Ralph Wilborn, Esquire, Ralph Wilborn & Etta L. Wilborn, P.C., Sahuarita, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, Thomas M. Elsberry, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S., SSA-Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BEA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in determining that Roxbury is not entitled to an immediate award of benefits because, even crediting the state doctors’ opinions as true, it’s not “clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled” given the state doctors’ conclusion that Roxbury had no limitations on handling or fingering. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir.1996). Moreover, there are “sufficient unanswered questions in the record that the district court’s determination to remand the case for further proceedings was not an abuse of discretion.” Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.2000); see also Strauss v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 1135, 1137-138 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.