Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01005/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01005-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jennifer L. Christopherson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael Astrue, Comm. of the Social

Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1005-PHX-JAT

ORDER

In 2006, Plaintiff applied for social security disability benefits. Doc. 20 at 1. After

various proceedings, the agency denied her application on March 19, 2009. Id. at 2. Plaintiff

then appealed that denial to the District Court. Doc. 1. In 2010, the District Court affirmed

the denial of benefits. Doc. 20 at 20. Plaintiff then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals (“Ninth Circuit”). Doc. 22. The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of benefits. Doc.

26. 

The issue currently before this Court is the meaning of the Ninth Circuit’s reversal.

More specifically, Plaintiff argues that the reversal was for an immediate award of benefits.

Defendant argues that the reversal was for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit’s

Memorandum is silent on this issue. Doc. 26-1 at 1-5. This Court requested further briefing.

Thus, currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand for benefits (Doc.

31), Defendant’s response to the motion (Doc. 32), and Plaintiff’s reply (Doc. 35).

Generally, an action should be remanded for the immediate award of benefits when

Case 2:09-cv-01005-JAT Document 40 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

the following three factors are satisfied:

(1) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting

evidence, (2) there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved before a

determination of disability can be made, and (3) it is clear from the record that

the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled were such evidence

credited.

Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000) (quoting

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

In this case, the Ninth Circuit held that the ALJ did not give sufficient reasons for

rejecting the treating physicians’ testimony, nor did the ALJ give sufficient reasons for

rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. Doc. 26-1 at 1-5. Thus, prong one from Harmon

is satisfied.

Next, Plaintiff points out that in remanding, the Ninth Circuit did not specify any

further evidence or further proceedings that would be required in this case. Doc. 35 at 3.

Plaintiff also notes that the Ninth Circuit did not mention the credit-as-true-rule; thereby

neither applying it, nor rejecting its application. Id. Thus, Plaintiff argues that the Ninth

Circuit left it to this Court to, “craft the appropriate remedy under the facts of this case.” Id.

Conversely, Defendant argues that Plaintiff argued credit-as-true at length to the Ninth

Circuit and the Circuit did not apply it; thus, Defendant concludes that the Ninth Circuit

implicitly rejected it. Doc. 32 at 3. Further Defendant cites many Ninth Circuit cases in

which the Court reversed and remanded for an immediate award of benefits and argues that

by not doing so in this case, the Ninth Circuit implicitly remanded for further proceedings.

Id.

Finally, both parties conclude with legal arguments regarding the appropriate use of

remand in social security cases. Specifically, citing Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 887

(9th Cir. 2004), Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should not have another opportunity to evaluate

the evidence and write an opinion on that evidence when the ALJ’s opinion has already been

held to be deficient. Defendant, citing Strauss v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d

1135, 1137 (9th Cir. 2011), argues that this Court cannot award benefits to a person who has

not established that she is disabled as a sanction for ALJ errors. Doc. 32 at 4. Further, also

Case 2:09-cv-01005-JAT Document 40 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

citing Moisa, Defendant argues that remand for further proceedings is the appropriate remedy

except in rare circumstances. Doc. 32 at 2 (citing Moisa, 367 F.3d at 886).

Neither parties’ arguments are inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this

case. However, the Ninth Circuit has noted repeatedly that remand for “additional

investigation or explanation” is appropriate in all but rare circumstances. Hill v. Astrue, Slip

Op. 10-35879 at 8861 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2012). Because the Court finds no rare circumstances

here that warrant a remand for benefits and because further vocational testimony is likely

required (Doc. 32 at 7) this Court will remand for further proceedings.

Also pending is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff correctly recounts that

she is entitled to attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act if Defendant’s position

was not substantially justified. Doc. 37 at 5. Here, the Court has read the decision affirming

the denial of benefits at Doc. 20. While the Court recognizes that the Ninth Circuit reversed

that decision; the Court nonetheless finds the reasoning of that decision shows that

Defendant’s position was substantially justified. As a result, the Court will deny fees under

the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand for a determination of benefits

(Doc. 31) is denied. Defendant’s request to remand for further proceedings (Doc. 32) is

granted. Thus, consistent with the Mandate in this case (Doc. 26), the decision of the ALJ

is reversed and this case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the

ALJ to consider all evidence in this case as specified above; the Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment consistent with this Order. The ALJ should reconsider all evidence in this case,

pose additional questions to the vocational expert, as necessary, and make a new

determination, de novo, regarding Plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to

the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 36) is denied.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-01005-JAT Document 40 Filed 08/13/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to stay briefing on the motion

for attorney’s fees (Doc. 39) is denied as moot.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2012.

Case 2:09-cv-01005-JAT Document 40 Filed 08/13/12 Page 4 of 4