Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08009/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08009-0/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 (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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Lorrie Sawtelle, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-08009-PCT-ESW

ORDER 

 The Court has considered Motion for Remand (Doc. 19), Plaintiff’s Response 

(Doc. 20), and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 21). The matter is deemed submitted for 

decision. The parties are in agreement that remand is appropriate and the factual basis for 

remand is not in dispute. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Both 

parties have consented to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction (Doc. 11). 

 The Court finds that proper notification procedures were not followed by the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in determining that Plaintiff did not have good cause for 

failing to appear at a hearing. The error was not harmless because the ALJ must consider 

the good cause reasons provided by a claimant under 20 C.F.R. §§ 405.380, 405.20(a). 

The ALJ failed to do so. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(citations omitted); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (an error is harmless so long 

as there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision and the error “does 

not negate the validity of the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion”) (citations omitted). Remand is 

required under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. 

Case 3:15-cv-08009-ESW Document 23 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 The Court further finds that a determination of good cause by this Court or an 

award of benefits is not appropriate. The ALJ did not hold a hearing on the merits. Nor 

did the ALJ consider any information presented by the Plaintiff regarding good cause for 

failing to appear at the hearing. The District Court is not a finder of fact in the first 

instance. Remand for development of the administrative record is appropriate. See 

Trerchler v. Comm’r of Social Sec Admin, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014). 

 Therefore, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the ALJ (Doc. 13-1 at 11-12) is reversed. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding the case for further administrative 

proceedings pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Appeals Council shall 

instruct the ALJ to further develop the record as to whether the Plaintiff had good cause 

for failing to appear at the hearing by mailing a Form HA-L90 and giving Plaintiff the 

opportunity to explain her absence. The ALJ shall consider if Plaintiff established good 

cause and reschedule the hearing if necessary. 

 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-08009-ESW Document 23 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 2