Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00535/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00535-0/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 

Kristoffer Shaun Cornelius,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security Administration, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-00535-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 14.) For the 

reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. 

BACKGROUND 

I. Procedural Background 

Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security 

income on March 29, 2010, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2008. (R. at 30.) He 

meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 

2014. (Id.) Plaintiff’s claims were denied both initially and upon reconsideration. (Id.) 

Plaintiff then appealed to an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Id.) The ALJ 

conducted a hearing on the matter on November 29, 2011. (Id.) On January 4, 2012, the 

ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation process found in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 

and concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled because his residual functional capacity 

(“RFC”) allowed him to perform simple, unskilled work. (Id. at 34.) The Appeals 

Council declined to review the decision (Id. at 2–7), and Plaintiff filed suit in this Court. 

(Doc. 1.). Defendant then filed a Motion to Remand (Doc. 14), which has been fully 

Case 2:13-cv-00535-SPL Document 21 Filed 10/18/13 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 

briefed. 

II. Factual Background 

 Plaintiff applied for benefits due to attention deficient hyperactivity disorder, 

depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic 

stress disorder, and sleep deprivation. (R. at 85.) In analyzing the severity of Plaintiff’s 

symptoms, the ALJ looked to Plaintiff’s medical records and to opinion evidence from 

two physicians who examined Plaintiff at the request of the State agency and two of 

Plaintiff’s treating physicians. (Id. at 35–39.) The ALJ further considered Plaintiff’s own 

testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms and their impact on his ability to obtain 

employment and remain employed. (Id. at 34–39.) The ALJ also considered the 

testimony of vocational expert Kathryn Atha. (Id. at 40.) 

DISCUSSION 

I. Legal Standard 

 In a claim seeking review of a denial of social security benefits, “[t]he court shall 

have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment 

affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, 

with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “If additional 

proceedings can remedy defects in the original administrative proceeding, a social 

security case should be remanded.” Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 

1990). On the other hand, when “the question of whether [a claimant] is eligible for 

benefits turns entirely on the credibility” of a plaintiff's testimony, and the district court 

finds that the ALJ improperly discredited that testimony, remand for further proceedings 

is inappropriate, and the court should instead remand for a calculation of benefits. Moisa 

v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2004). 

II. Analysis 

Defendant argues that the record here presents outstanding issues that must be 

resolved. Defendant argues that the ALJ should be directed on remand to (1) give 

additional consideration to the medical opinion of Dr. Steingard and specify reasons for 

Case 2:13-cv-00535-SPL Document 21 Filed 10/18/13 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 

the weight assigned to her opinion; (2) further evaluate Plaintiff’s RFC; and (3) obtain 

additional vocational expert evidence in order to clarify the effect of Plaintiff’s RFC on 

his occupational base. (Doc. 14 at 2.) However, Defendant fails to demonstrate good 

cause to justify remanding this case for further proceedings. 

 The ALJ found that Dr. Steingard’s opinion was “rendered by a qualified, 

objective acceptable medical source that considered the claimant’s subjective 

complaints” and that “the rationale expressed by this consultant and the conclusions 

reached are consistent with the treatment record, objective findings, opinion evidence, 

and the medical evidence as a whole.” (R. at 37.) Accordingly, the ALJ afforded her 

opinion significant weight. (Id.) Defendant now asserts that the ALJ incorporated some of 

Dr. Steingard’s opinions into her ultimate RFC finding, but did not incorporate Dr. 

Steingard’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s persistence. Defendant states that the ALJ may 

have intended to discount some of Dr. Steingard’s findings on this subject, but that the 

ALJ failed to explicitly state this in her decision. Defendant would direct the ALJ to be 

more specific in her consideration of Dr. Steingard’s opinions on remand. However, 

nothing in the ALJ’s decision suggests any hesitance regarding the ALJ’s ultimate 

decision to give significant weight to Dr. Steingard’s opinions. 

 Defendant further argues that the ALJ should have the opportunity on remand to 

potentially reassess the Plaintiff’s RFC, and then obtain additional vocational expert 

evidence on the effects of Plaintiff’s RFC on his occupational base, should that additional 

testimony become relevant. (Doc. 15 at 4.) Defendant fails to show good cause for 

affording the agency an additional opportunity to consider the same evidence the ALJ 

already considered in her opinion, or to have the opportunity to obtain further vocational 

expert evidence, beyond the evidence already provided by Kathryn Atha (R. at 74–81.) 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 

 1. Defendant’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 14) is denied. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-00535-SPL Document 21 Filed 10/18/13 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 

 2. Plaintiff shall have to and including November 18, 2013, to file an 

Opening Brief. 

 Dated this 17th day of October, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00535-SPL Document 21 Filed 10/18/13 Page 4 of 4