Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00196/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00196-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASEY L. CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00196-JDP

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING ON 

THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF 

REVIEW, NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN

PAGES

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Claimant Casey L. Clark has requested judicial review of the Social Security 

Administration’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. On March 12, 

2020, the court heard argument from the parties. At the hearing, the parties were

(understandably) not in a position to argue at length about the appropriate standard of review—

an issue merely touched on in briefing. See ECF No. 16 at 5 n.3. The court will therefore 

order additional briefing on the standard of review—and, in particular, the relationship 

between the Ninth Circuit’s “clear and convincing reasons” standard and recent administrative 

guidance from the Social Security Administration. See, e.g., Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 

664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017) (“We have established a two-step analysis for determining the extent 

to which a claimant’s symptom testimony must be credited.”); Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 81 Fed. 

Reg. 14,166, 14,166 (Mar. 16, 2016) (“This Ruling provides guidance about how we evaluate 

statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms in disability 

claims.”). Such briefing should address the origins of the “clear and convincing reasons” 

Case 1:19-cv-00196-JDP Document 20 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

`

2

standard and the degree of deference the court owes to administrative interpretations that may 

conflict with it (if any). 

No later than thirty days from the date of this order, the parties should file supplemental 

briefs, not to exceed fifteen pages, that address the above issues related to the appropriate 

standard of review—as well as related issues related to the standard of review that the parties 

may deem important.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

 

1 Given the potential complexity of this issue and the unusual events now occurring in our 

country with the appearance of COVID-19, the court recognizes that the parties may require 

more than the 30 days allotted herein to complete briefing. If this proves to be the case, the 

parties should request additional time.

Case 1:19-cv-00196-JDP Document 20 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 2