Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02168/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02168-0/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 

Juana Gutierrez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-02168-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff Juana Gutierrez seeks judicial review of 

Defendant’s decision finding her not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security 

Act. Defendant, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), has 

filed a motion to remand this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 15. The motions are fully briefed and no party 

has requested oral argument. The Court will remand this case for further administrative 

proceedings. 

I. Background. 

Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits on June 23, 2010, alleging 

disability beginning on May 6, 2009. After a hearing on May 18, 2012, an administrative 

law judge (“ALJ”) issued an opinion on May 31, 2012 finding Plaintiff not disabled. A 

request for review was denied by the Appeals Council and the ALJ’s opinion became the 

Commissioner’s final decision. 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-02168-DGC Document 19 Filed 08/25/14 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 

II. Legal Standard. 

Defendant’s decision to deny benefits will be vacated “only if it is not supported 

by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 

F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). If there is sufficient evidence to support the 

Commissioner’s determination, the Court cannot substitute its own determination. See 

Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 184 (9th Cir. 1990). 

III. Analysis. 

Plaintiff advances five arguments as to why the ALJ’s decision was erroneous. 

First, she argues that the ALJ failed to properly weigh the medical source opinion of 

treating physician Dr. Moya. Doc. 13 at 11. Second, she argues that the ALJ failed to 

properly weigh the medical source opinion of examining physician Dr. Suarez. Id. at 14. 

Third, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to properly weigh her reported symptoms. Id. 

at 17. Fourth, she argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the testimony of her friend, 

Esther Macias. Id. at 21. Finally, she asserts that the ALJ’s vocational hypothetical was 

incomplete. Id. at 22. 

Defendant asks the Court to remand the case to the Appeals Council to enable the 

ALJ to update the treatment evidence on Plaintiff’s medical condition; to obtain evidence 

from a medical expert to clarify the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s impairment; to more 

clearly evaluate Dr. Suarez’s opinion and explain the reasons for the weight she gives this 

opinion evidence; to reconsider Plaintiff’s RFC on the updated record; to consider 

whether Plaintiff has past relevant work experience that she could perform with the 

limitations established by the evidence; and to secure supplemental evidence from a 

vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on Plaintiff’s 

occupational base. Doc. 15 at 2. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion to remand and 

argues that the case should be remanded for an award of benefits based on the credit-astrue doctrine. Doc. 18 at 4-5. Because there are outstanding issues that have yet to be 

resolved, the Court will remand the case for further proceedings. 

In Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit held 

Case 2:13-cv-02168-DGC Document 19 Filed 08/25/14 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 

that evidence should be credited and an action remanded for an immediate award of 

benefits when 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. Remand for an award of benefits is appropriate where the record is 

“fully developed.” Reddick, 157 F.3d at 728. 

Assuming, without deciding, that the ALJ improperly discounted the medical 

opinions and testimony mentioned above, it is not clear that the ALJ would be required to 

find Plaintiff disabled if they were credited as true. As Plaintiff acknowledges (Doc. 13 

at 22), there is no vocational expert testimony considering all of the limitations assessed 

by Drs. Moya and Suarez in their medical opinions and explaining what jobs would be 

available to Plaintiff if any of the assessed limitations were accepted as true. Similarly, 

there is no vocational expert testimony considering all of the limitations alleged by 

Plaintiff and Esther Macias. Accordingly, it is not clear to the Court that the ALJ would 

be required to find Plaintiff disabled if any of these sources were credited as true. The 

Court will therefore remand the case for further proceedings. 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded for further proceedings pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 25th day of August, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02168-DGC Document 19 Filed 08/25/14 Page 3 of 3