Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01535/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01535-0/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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Laura Lyn Klaas, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-01535-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

At issue is the denial of Plaintiff Laura Lyn Klaas’s Application for Disability 

Insurance Benefits by the Social Security Administration under the Social Security Act. 

Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) with this Court seeking judicial review of that denial 

and an Opening Brief in support (Doc. 13, “Pl.’s Br.”). Defendant Commissioner of 

Social Security Administration filed a responsive brief requesting remand for further 

proceedings (Doc. 20, “Def.’s Br.”), and Plaintiff filed a Reply seeking remand for a 

computation of benefits (Doc. 21, “Reply”). 

 On January 23, 2014, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff’s 

claim for Disability Insurance Benefits based on disability beginning January 5, 2009, 

(Doc. 9, R. at 21-40), and that decision was upheld by the Appeals Council on June 12, 

2015 (R. at 1-6). After Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s decision, Defendant conceded that the 

ALJ made certain errors in reaching her decision and requesting remand. (Def.’s Br. at 5.) 

In response, Plaintiff argues that no outstanding issues remain and the Court should find 

Plaintiff disabled under the Act and remand for a calculation of benefits. (Reply at 3-7.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01535-JJT Document 22 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 Thus, Plaintiff asks that the Court apply the “credit-as-true” rule, which would 

result in remand of Plaintiff’s case for payment of benefits rather than further 

proceedings. (Pl.’s Br. at 23-24; Reply at 2-7.) The credit-as-true rule only applies in 

cases that raise “rare circumstances” that permit the Court to depart from the ordinary 

remand rule under which the case is remanded for additional investigation or explanation. 

Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099–102 (9th Cir. 2014). 

These rare circumstances arise when three elements are present. First, the ALJ must fail 

to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting medical evidence. Id. at 1100. Second, 

the record must be fully developed, there must be no outstanding issues that must be 

resolved before a determination of disability can be made, and further administrative 

proceedings would not be useful. Id. at 1101. Further proceedings are considered useful 

when there are conflicts and ambiguities that must be resolved. Id. Third, if the above 

elements are met, the Court may “find[] the relevant testimony credible as a matter of law 

. . . and then determine whether the record, taken as a whole, leaves ‘not the slightest 

uncertainty as to the outcome of [the] proceeding.’” Id. (citations omitted). 

The Court has reviewed the record in its entirety and agrees with Defendant that 

the record is not fully developed and that uncertainty remains as to whether Plaintiff is 

disabled under the Act. For example, the ALJ gives “significant weight” to the opinions 

of Dr. Donald Fruchtman and Dr. Brian Briggs, but those opinions are themselves 

disparate. (R. at 26.) It is unclear from the ALJ’s opinion which portions of each are 

credited, which are not, and why. The ALJ also failed to fully consider those opinions 

and did not consider all limitations assessed in the RFC. (R. at 28-32.) Further, the ALJ 

failed to at all consider the assessment of occupational therapist Mary Louise Hyman, 

who opined that Plaintiff’s limitations preclude even sedentary work. (R. at 26.) The ALJ 

also failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons substantiated by the 

requisite evidence in the record for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective testimony, which must 

also be reconsidered, particularly in light of SSR 96-7p. (Def.’s Br. at 7; cf. Reply at 4.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01535-JJT Document 22 Filed 03/16/17 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

In addition to these specific errors, the ALJ generally fails to adequately 

summarize the facts and conflicting medical evidence in a “detailed and thorough 

fashion,” as required. See Maganalles v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Nonetheless, the Court cannot take Plaintiff’s proposed findings in place of missing 

findings by an ALJ (see Pl.’s Br. at 23-24) and must remand so that important gaps in the 

ALJ’s findings can be filled in and the reasoning for those findings clarified. See 

Carmickle v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the ALJ 

is responsible for judging the medical evidence and making findings in the first instance). 

Further administrative proceedings in this case would be more than useful; they are 

necessary. 

 Because of the uncertainty left by gaps in the ALJ’s findings as well as 

contradictory medical records and opinions, uncertainty also remains as to whether 

Plaintiff is disabled under the Act. As Defendant points out, on remand, the ALJ must 

reassess the severity of Plaintiff’s impairments, consider all of the medical opinions of 

record, articulate the weight given to the medical opinions—including which portions of 

those opinions—and the reasons therefor in a detailed and thorough manner, and draw 

conclusions as to Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity and her resulting ability to 

perform past relevant work or other work in the national economy, taking additional 

vocational expert testimony as necessary. 

 For all the foregoing reasons, the Court must remand this matter to the ALJ for 

further development of the record and a disability determination. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant Commissioner of Social 

Security Administration’s Motion for Remand in its Response (Doc. 20). The Court 

remands this matter for further proceedings consistent with this Order. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:15-cv-01535-JJT Document 22 Filed 03/16/17 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment 

accordingly and close this case. 

 Dated this 16th day of March, 2017. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01535-JJT Document 22 Filed 03/16/17 Page 4 of 4