Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02399/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02399-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Adela V. Villarreal, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-02399-TUC-RM

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate 

Judge Eric J. Markovitch (Doc. 16). In his Report and Recommendation, Judge 

Markovitch recommends that this Court find the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 

committed several legal errors in denying Plaintiff Adela V. Villarreal’s claim and 

accordingly remand the case for an award of benefits. Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin 

filed an Objection (Doc. 18), and Plaintiff responded (Doc. 19). 

I. Standard of Review 

 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C). The advisory committee notes to Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. See also Prior v. Ryan, 

2012 WL 1344286, *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2012) (reviewing for clear error unobjected-to 

Case 4:14-cv-02399-RM Document 20 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

portions of Report and Recommendation); Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 

739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district judge 

reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”). 

II. Analysis

 Defendant objected not to Judge Markovitch’s finding of legal error, but to his 

chosen remedy. Thus, this Court reviews Judge Markovitch’s recommendation for a 

remand for an award of benefits (rather than for additional proceedings) de novo, and 

reviews Judge Markovitch’s finding that the ALJ committed various legal errors for clear 

error. After its independent review of the record, this Court finds no error in Judge 

Markovitch’s thorough and carefully reasoned finding that the ALJ erred. 

 Defendant argues that Judge Markovitch’s recommendation of remand for an 

award of benefits is contrary to Ninth Circuit law. Specifically, Defendant argues that 

according to Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Security, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014), 

Judge Markovitch could not credit Plaintiff’s evidence as true and thereby recommend 

remand for an award of benefits simply because the ALJ committed various legal errors. 

It is true that Treichler does forbid a reviewing court to apply the “credit as true” standard 

based only upon a finding that an ALJ erred. See Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1105-06. A 

finding that the ALJ committed legal error is but the first step in determining whether the 

“credit as true” rule may be applied. Id. 775 F.3d at 1100-01. After such a finding, the 

court must also determine if the record has been fully developed, such that there are no 

outstanding factual issues that must be resolved. Id. at 1101. Then, the court must 

determine if “the record, taken as a whole, leaves ‘not the slightest uncertainty as to the 

outcome of [the] proceeding.’” Id. (quoting N.L.R.B v. Wyman v. Gordon, 394 U.S. 759, 

766 n.6 (1969)) (alteration in original). Only after all three determinations have been 

made can a court find the relevant testimony as true and remand for benefits instead of 

additional administrative proceedings. 

 However, while the section of the Report and Recommendation discussing 

remedies could be read as making a premature application of the “credit as true” rule, the 

Case 4:14-cv-02399-RM Document 20 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

whole Report and Recommendation demonstrates that Judge Markovitch determined that 

this is one of the rare cases in which remand for an award of benefits is warranted. (See 

Doc. 16 at 32-54). The full record, as detailed in Judge Markovitch’s Report and 

Recommendation, demonstrates that the record before this Court is fully developed and 

all issues have been resolved. The inconsistencies in fact that caused the Treichler court 

to reject the “credit as true” rule do not exist in this record. Further, given the consistent 

testimony of Plaintiff’s primary doctor, of the vocational expert when presented with 

hypotheticals in line with Plaintiff’s condition, and of the lay witnesses, there is not the 

slightest uncertainty as to the outcome of the proceeding. Thus, this Court concludes that 

the recommendation for a remand for benefits was appropriate. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovitch’s Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is accepted and adopted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Social Security 

Commissioner is reversed, and this case is remanded for an award of benefits consistent 

with this Order and with Judge Markovitch’s Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of 

Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 30th day of March, 2016. 

Honorable Rosemary Márquez

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02399-RM Document 20 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 3