Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00698/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00698-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON LEMKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00698-JDP (SS)

ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING

THE COMMISSIONER’S CROSS-MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ECF Nos. 24 & 29

Plaintiff, who suffers from bilateral knee osteoarthritis, lumbar and cervical spine 

degenerative disc disease, and right shoulder degenerative joint disease, challenges the final 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for 

supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Both parties 

have moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 24 & 29. Because I find that the ALJ failed to 

provide clear and convincing reasons for discrediting plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and limitations, 

plaintiff’s motion is granted, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion is denied.

Standard of Review

An Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying an application for disability 

benefits will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record and if the correct 

legal standards have been applied. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th 

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 1 of 11
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

Cir. 2006). “‘Substantial evidence’ means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a 

preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). 

“The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical 

testimony, and resolving ambiguities.” Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(citations omitted). “Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, 

one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas v. 

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the court will not affirm on grounds upon 

which the ALJ did not rely. Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We are 

constrained to review the reasons the ALJ asserts.”).

A five-step sequential evaluation process is used in assessing eligibility for Social Security 

disability benefits. Under this process, the ALJ is required to determine: (1) whether the claimant 

is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a medical impairment (or 

combination of impairments) that qualifies as severe; (3) whether any of the claimant’s 

impairments meet or medically equal the severity of one of the impairments in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, 

Subpt. P, App. 1; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the 

claimant can perform other specified types of work. See Barnes v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 702, 704 

n.3 (9th Cir. 2018). The claimant bears the burden of proof for the first four steps of the inquiry, 

while the Commissioner bears the burden at the final step. Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 

949, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Background

In August 2015, plaintiff filed an application for SSI, alleging disability beginning on April 

1, 2012. Administrative Record (“AR”) 183-91. After her applications were denied both initially 

and upon reconsideration, plaintiff appeared and testified at a hearing before an Administrative 

Law Judge (“ALJ”). AR 38-104. On December 20, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding that 

plaintiff was not disabled. AR 20-37. 

Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council, but the request was denied. AR 1-5, 

182. She then challenged the ALJ’s decision by filing a complaint in District Court. AR 1673-75. 

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 2 of 11
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

On September 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge remanded the matter for further 

proceedings in accordance with the parties’ stipulation to voluntary remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). AR 1689. 

The Appeals Council subsequently remanded the case to the ALJ (1) to address an 

incomplete evaluation of the opinion evidence, including the opinion of treating physician Dr. 

Daniel B. Dahle, M.D., and (2) to consider whether the ALJ and VE appropriately determined the 

requirements of plaintiff’s past work. The Appeals Council also instructed the ALJ to obtain 

supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on 

plaintiff’s occupational base, and to give further consideration to plaintiff’s residual functional 

capacity, her alleged symptoms, and her past relevant work. AR 1693-98.

On remand, plaintiff appeared via telephone and testified before the same ALJ at a hearing 

on January 12, 2021. AR 1595-1648. On February 5, 2021, the ALJ issued a second denial, 

making the following findings: 

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 

August 21, 2015, the application date.

2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: bilateral knee 

osteoarthritis, left greater than right; lumbar & cervical spine 

degenerative disc disease, and right shoulder degenerative joint 

disease.

* * *

3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of 

impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of 

the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.

* * *

4. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the 

claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work 

as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b), except she is able to climb ramps 

and stairs occasionally, but is never able to climb ladders, ropes or 

scaffolds. The claimant is able to balance and stoop frequently; 

kneel, crouch and crawl occasionally; and reach overhead with the 

right upper extremity occasionally. In addition, the claimant 

should avoid concentrated exposure to cold, vibration, and 

workplace hazards.

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 3 of 11
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

* * *

5. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a 

checker and a home attendant. This work does not require the 

performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's 

residual functional capacity.

* * *

6. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the 

Social Security Act, since August 21, 2015, the date the 

application was filed.

AR 1573-94 (citations to the Code of Federal Regulations omitted).

Plaintiff submitted written exceptions to the ALJ’s second denial. AR 1886-88. The

Appeals Council denied the exceptions, and the ALJ’s February 5, 2021, decision became the final 

decision of the Commissioner. AR 1553-58, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484. Plaintiff now seeks 

judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).

Analysis

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s February 5, 2021, decision should be vacated for the 

following reasons: (1) the ALJ relied on vocational expert testimony that conflicted with the 

Dictionary of Occupational Titles without questioning the VE about “obvious discrepancies”; 

(2) the ALJ did not give clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for 

discounting plaintiff’s testimony concerning her limitations; (3) the ALJ erred when formulating 

plaintiff’s residual functional capacity by ignoring impairments, improperly weighing medical 

opinions, and failing to fully develop the record. ECF No. 24 at 6-7, 21-36.

I agree that the ALJ failed to properly consider plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and 

limitations. Because remand is warranted on this issue, I decline to address plaintiff’s remaining 

arguments.

A. Overview of Plaintiff’s Medical History 

The record indicates that plaintiff sought frequent medical care for pain in her shoulder, 

knees, and back. In July 2015, she was involved in a motor vehicle crash that resulted in injuries 

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 4 of 11
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

5

to both knees and her right ankle. AR 1582, 336-40. MRI studies of plaintiff’s right knee in 

August 2015 indicated a horizontal tear of the medial meniscus, and grade two to three 

chondromalacia of the medial joint space. AR 371, 1582. In September 2015, plaintiff had 

surgery on her right knee that included a partial medial meniscectomy and medial compartment 

debridement. AR 405, 1582. 

In February 2016, plaintiff had arthroscopic surgery on her left knee that included 

chondroplasty of the medial femoral condyle and the tibial plateau and a partial medial 

meniscectomy. AR 1103. The surgery revealed a degenerative tear of the medial meniscus and 

“extensive” degenerative changes. AR 906, 1582. An MRI of plaintiff’s left knee in May 2016 

showed grade four chondromalacia of the medial joint space, grade three chondromalacia of the 

medial patellofemoral joint, and small joint effusion. AR 1128-29. 

Plaintiff was prescribed a knee brace and the pain-relief medications Tramadol and Norco. 

See, e.g., 451, 1434. Plaintiff also saw a chiropractor and attended physical therapy sessions to 

treat her pain symptoms. See AR 511, 1492-1552, 2157. 

A May 2017 treatment note indicates that at a follow-up visit with Dr. Dahle, plaintiff 

complained of swelling, pain, and instability in her left knee. AR 1467. Exam findings showed 

tenderness along the medial joint line of the left knee, as well as crepitus and a lack of full flexion. 

AR 1469. Other findings included slightly decreased range of motion in the right arm, pain in the 

trapezius area, and localized swelling and stiffness in the back.1 AR 1467-69. Although plaintiff’s 

neurological motor exam demonstrated “no dysfunction,” Dr. Dahle noted that she had an 

“abnormal” gait because “when she walks, she tends to look down to make sure she places her left 

leg.” AR 1469. 

Subsequent MRI and x-ray imaging reflected degenerative changes in plaintiff’s right 

shoulder, left knee, and spine. Specifically, an x-ray of her right shoulder in August 2017 showed

probable calcific tendinosis and narrowing of the AC joint with minimal inferior osseous spurring. 

1

In February 2014, prior to the filing date of plaintiff’s SSI application, she had 

arthroscopic surgery on her right shoulder that included calcification needling and revealed a 

degenerative labral tear. AR 314-15. 

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 5 of 11
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

6

AR 2194. Another shoulder x-ray in February 2020 showed diffuse osseous demineralization and 

probable calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff. AR 2204. Regarding the cervical spine, in 2018 

an x-ray showed mild endplate spurring at C4 to C7, see AR 2196, while a cervical MRI showed 

annular bulging at C2 to C6, multilevel cervical canal stenosis, and foraminal narrowing. AR 

2197-98. A lumbar MRI from 2019 showed the following: minimal annular bulging at L2-3; 

bilateral facet and legamentum flavum hypertrophy, and foraminal-lateral annular tears on the right 

and left sides at L4-5; and annular bulging and posterior spondylitic ridging, bilateral facet and 

legamentum flavum hypertrophy, and mild bilateral foraminal narrowing at L5-S1. AR 1943-44. 

B. Plaintiff’s Subjective Symptoms

On September 5, 2015, plaintiff completed an Adult Function Report addressing how her 

conditions limit her activities. AR 239-47. To describe how she spends her days, plaintiff stated

that she “clean[s] [her]self up the best [she] can” and “do[es] what [she] can around the house.” 

AR 240. She also tries to go to physical therapy “on days [that she] can get there.” Id. In the 

section about meals, she stated that she has the ability to stand in the kitchen for only short periods 

of time, and that meal preparation takes less than fifteen minutes. AR 241. For household chores, 

plaintiff stated that she is able to vacuum “in short periods” and do laundry “in short periods,” and 

water her flowerpots. Id. Because she needs to take breaks, two loads of laundry can take her four 

hours to complete, and vacuuming her house can take two hours. Id. Describing her shopping 

activities, plaintiff stated that she only shops for groceries for twenty minutes each week, adding

that “it hurts too much to walk and stand for very long.” AR 242-43. 

For hobbies and interests, plaintiff listed jogging, riding her bicycle, reading books, and 

watching movies, but stated that since her car accident she is no longer able to jog or cycle. AR 

240, 243. In addition to the grocery store, the only other places that plaintiff goes to on a regular 

basis are doctor’s appointments two times per week, physical therapy sessions three times per 

week, and the post office. AR 243. In the section seeking information about abilities, plaintiff 

stated that lifting, kneeling, walking, and standing “hurt[] terribly.” AR 244. She also stated that 

she had been prescribed “braces/splints,” which she uses every day. AR 245. 

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 6 of 11
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

7

At the 2017 hearing, plaintiff testified that she has severe pain in her neck, lower back, and 

knee, and that, even with medication, the pain is at an intensity of eight or nine on a scale of one to 

ten. AR 1721, 1731-32. She is able to sit for thirty-five minutes before she needs to take a break

by standing up to “let the blood flow in [her] legs.” AR 1707-08. Because of back pain, plaintiff 

is able to walk for only ten or fifteen minutes. AR 1728-29. In response to questions about her 

activities, plaintiff testified that she shops for groceries with her roommate one day per week; she 

is able to manage her own hygiene and grooming except for bending over to clip her toenails; and

that she no longer rides her bicycle or jogs. AR 1726-29. Plaintiff swims and rides a stationary 

bike for ten minutes as physical therapy. AR 1726, 1729-30. She has prescriptions for Tramadol 

and Norco for pain symptoms, but they are not effective. AR 1732. She also sees a chiropractor. 

AR 1733.

At the 2021 hearing, plaintiff testified that in addition to cervical and lumbar degenerative 

disc disease and degenerative joint disease in her right shoulder, she experiences pain and swelling 

in her ankle that began after her car accident. Although her ankle had improved with physical 

therapy, the symptoms returned before January 2020 and have increased in severity. AR 1613-15. 

She has pain in her right shoulder and neuropathy in her hands, and is unable to open a bottle of 

milk. AR 1617, 1622-24. She wears a brace on her right knee which is “the only way [she] can 

get around,” although it “keeps [her] off balance.” AR 1624. She is able to stand for only five or 

ten minutes before she needs to either lay down or sit down. AR 1618. When asked about grocery 

shopping, plaintiff testified that she orders her groceries online and that her friend brings the 

groceries to plaintiff’s house. AR 1619. For pain relief, plaintiff takes Tramadol. She also uses 

patches and topical creams that “work for a little while, but they’re not a cure all.” AR 1618, 

1624. 

C. Legal Standard for Rejecting Symptom Testimony

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms, an ALJ 

follows a two-step analysis. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007). First, 

the ALJ must determine whether there is “objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment 

which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 7 of 11
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

8

(quotations and citation omitted). If the first test is satisfied and there is no evidence of 

malingering, the ALJ can only reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of the symptoms

by giving “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for the rejection. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 

1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations and quotations omitted). Additionally, the ALJ must state 

findings that are “sufficiently specific to permit the court to conclude that the ALJ did not 

arbitrarily discredit [the] claimant’s testimony.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir. 

2002) 

B. The ALJ’s Credibility Determination

The ALJ found that plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be 

expected to cause the alleged symptoms. The ALJ then considered plaintiff’s testimony, along 

with the statements in her Adult Function Report, and the statements made by plaintiff’s friend in a 

Third Party Function Report, and found that their allegations were not entirely consistent with the 

record of evidence. Id. In rejecting plaintiff’s claimed symptoms and limitations, the ALJ stated:

Although the claimant and her friend alleged that the claimant had 

the ability to lift only 5 pounds and that she had significant 

exertional limitations with standing and walking, the medical 

evidence of record as a whole demonstrates that she has been able to 

perform a significant number of activities of daily living, including 

exercising regularly, cooking, doing household chores, and going 

shopping. 

AR 1584. 

The ALJ’s reliance on the above-listed activities does not qualify as a clear and convincing 

reason supported by substantial evidence for rejecting plaintiff’s subjective complaints. As stated 

above, plaintiff reported that she only spends fifteen minutes to prepare meals because she has 

difficulty standing for longer periods of time, see AR 241, that she spends about twenty minutes

shopping for groceries once per week, see AR 242-43, 1726, and that she is able to carry out 

household chores like vacuuming and laundry only by working for “short periods” and taking 

breaks.2 See AR 241. The ALJ has not pointed out any specific contradictions between plaintiff’s 

2 Plaintiff lives in a trailer, and, with rest breaks, it takes her two hours to vacuum the 

space. AR 241, 1601, 1619. Two loads of laundry can take her four hours. AR 241. 

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 8 of 11
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

9

alleged symptoms and the foregoing activities.

3

 Additionally, there is no indication that plaintiff 

spent a substantial part of her day performing these activities; neither did the ALJ explain how

such activities relate to the demands of the workplace. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112-

13 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded on other ground by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a); Fair v. Bowen, 885 

F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that daily activities may support adverse credibility finding 

“if a claimant is able to spend a substantial part of his day engaged in pursuits involving the 

performance of physical functions that are transferable to a work setting”), superseded on other 

grounds by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a); see also Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 149-50 (9th Cir. 

2001) (“[T]he mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery 

shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from her 

credibility as to her overall disability.”). In particular, grocery shopping is not even a “daily” 

activity, and there is no indication how this limited, infrequent event demonstrates the ability to 

function in a job setting, or that plaintiff’s symptoms are less severe than alleged.4 

As for plaintiff’s exercise regimen, the record shows that she attended physical therapy for 

approximately one year, from October 2015 to October 2016. See AR 1492-1552. Once physical 

therapy ended, she continued to independently engage in therapeutic exercises—swimming and 

riding a stationary bike for ten minutes—to treat her symptoms. AR 1729-30; see also AR 1550 

(October 11, 2016, letter from physical therapist to Dr. Dahle indicating that plaintiff is ready to 

continue her “independent home exercise program/gym program”). At that time, Dr. Dahle and an

orthopedic surgeon agreed that plaintiff should undertake “vigorous” physical therapy that 

includes swimming. See, e.g., 1464. Not only are plaintiff’s physical therapy exercises in 

accordance with her treating doctor’s recommendation, but the ALJ failed to sufficiently explain 

how such exercises are inconsistent with her claimed symptoms. Additionally, activities such as 

3 The court notes that plaintiff did not assert that she could lift only five pounds. Rather, 

plaintiff’s friend in the Third Party Function Report stated that he was “unsure of how many lbs.

she can lift” and that in his opinion, she is capable of lifting “less than 5 lbs.” AR 221. The friend 

also stated that plaintiff is unable to stand or walk for an extended amount of time, which is

consistent with plaintiff’s subjective complaints. See AR 219. 

4 Plaintiff testified at the 2021 hearing that she purchases her groceries online and no 

longer shops in the grocery store. AR 1619.

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 9 of 11
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

10

swimming and riding a stationary bike for ten minutes do not necessarily reflect any capabilities 

that transfer to a work setting.

5

 A claimant “may do these activities despite pain for therapeutic 

reasons, but that does not mean she could concentrate on work despite the pain or could engage in 

similar activity for a longer period given the pain involved.” Vertigan, 260 F.3d at 150 (emphasis 

in original). 

Next, in rejecting plaintiff’s symptom claims, the ALJ stated: 

Medical consultants also determined that she was able to perform 

light work with some postural, manipulative, and environmental 

limitations, which was consistent with objective medical findings of 

record showing her to have no limp when she walked, only slightly 

decreased motion of the cervical and lumbar spine, normal motor 

strength, and normal neurological findings. 

AR 1584. The ALJ does not elaborate by pointing out any particular aspect of the consultative 

physicians’ opinions that undermines plaintiff’s credibility, other than stating that the physicians’ 

light work determination conflicts with plaintiff’s asserted physical limitations. Accordingly, the 

ALJ’s reliance on the consultative physicians’ opinions is not a sufficiently specific reason to

disregard plaintiff’s claimed symptoms. The remaining ground cited by the ALJ is that the noted 

objective findings do not support plaintiff’s allegations of pain and physical limitations. 

However, the lack of objective medical evidence to corroborate subjective complaints of pain 

cannot, by itself, support an adverse credibility determination. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 

F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[O]nce a claimant produces objective medical evidence of an 

underlying impairment, an [ALJ] may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely 

on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.”) 

(citation omitted).

5 To the extent the ALJ also relies on notations in the record stating that plaintiff’s exercise 

activities include “short jogs,” this does not amount to a clear and convincing reason to discredit 

her symptom testimony. The reference to “short jogs” is found in plaintiff’s “social history” that 

is stated on a multitude of progress notes from plaintiff’s chiropractor: “Social History: Patient 

admits exercising regularly: walking, biking, short jogs.” See, e.g., AR 511. This same language 

is included in all of plaintiff’s chiropractor records, spanning from November 2013 to October 

2019. See AR 511, 2157. Under these circumstances, it appears that plaintiff’s social history 

reflects what she was able to do in the past rather than her physical abilities during the relevant 

time period. 

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 10 of 11
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

11

C. Remand for Further Proceedings

Because the ALJ’s rejection of plaintiff’s subjective complaints was not based on clear and 

convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record, the matter must be remanded 

for further consideration. See Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A district 

court may reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding 

the case for a rehearing, but the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the 

agency for additional investigation or explanation.”) (internal quotes and citations omitted); 

Treichler v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 775 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Where . . . an ALJ 

makes a legal error, but the record is uncertain and ambiguous, the proper approach is to remand 

the case to the agency.”).

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 24, is granted.

2. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 29, is denied. 

3. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 33 Filed 09/27/24 Page 11 of 11