Case ID: f-appx_679/html/0560-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Lee MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-17328
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 15, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed February 17, 2017
    Eric G. Slepian, Esquire, Slepian Law Office, Phoenix, AZ, Plaintiff-Appellant
    Daniel E. Burrows, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, SSA-Social Security Administration, Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Before: CANBY, SILER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in remanding John McLaughlin’s claim for disability benefits to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings, rather than ordering an award of benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. The district court concluded, and the Commissioner concedes on appeal, that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in discrediting the medical opinion of one of McLaughlin’s treating physicians without providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ also erred in discrediting the opinion of a nurse practitioner without providing reasons germane to her. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012).

2. Although the credit-as-true rule permits remand for an immediate award of benefits in some cases when an ALJ improperly discredits a medical opinion, a remand for further proceedings remains appropriate if conflicts in the record create a serious doubt that a claimant is disabled. See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the record in this case contains substantial evidence consistent with non-disability, including evidence that McLaughlin’s pain and symptoms were well-treated by treatment and medication.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Because we rejnand on an open record, we do not address McLaughlin’s arguments that the AU improperly discounted his testimony about his symptoms and subjective pain.