Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00086/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00086-0/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 

Justin Weigel, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant.

No. CV 11-086-TUC-BPV

ORDER 

Plaintiff, Justin Weigel, suffers from the impairments of left ankle trauma, status 

post-surgery. In addition, Plaintiff suffers from bipolar disorder and depression. Plaintiff 

applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) on April 26 2005, alleging disability 

since October 14, 2004 due to an ankle injury and mental impairments. Tr. 35, 37, 163-

65, 178-91. The application was denied initially, (Tr. 73), on reconsideration (Tr. 78), and 

after an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held on 

October 17, 2006 (Tr. 39-47). The Appeals Council remanded the ALJ’s decision for a 

new hearing and decision on July 19, 2007. Tr. 136-39. On April 10, 2008, the ALJ 

issued a second unfavorable decision. Tr. 645-57. The Appeals Council again remanded 

on December 31, 2008. Tr. 658-61. On April 1, 2009, Plaintiff, through his attorney, 

amended his application to request a closed period of disability from October 14, 2004 to 

August 31, 2008, due to the fact that he returned to work in September 2008. Tr. 711. The 

ALJ issued a written decision on November 6, 2009, finding Plaintiff not disabled within 

the meaning of the Social Security Act. Tr. 17-28. This decision became the final 

Case 4:11-cv-00086-BPV Document 24 Filed 03/08/12 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

decision for purposes of judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) when the Appeals 

Council denied review. Tr. 6. 

Plaintiff now brings this action for review of the final decision of the 

Commissioner for Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). The United States 

Magistrate Judge has received the written consent of both parties, and, accordingly, 

presides over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. 

After considering the record before the Court and the parties’ briefing of the 

issues, the Court will reverse Defendant’s decision and remand for an award of benefits. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court has the “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). The 

court will set aside a denial of benefits only if the Commissioner's findings are based on 

legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Kail v. 

Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1497 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 

642 (9th Cir.1982), Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 939 (9th Cir, 1982)); 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). The Commissioner concedes that the Commissioner’s final decision is not 

supported by substantial evidence, and thus, judgment should go to Plaintiff. (Doc. 22, at 

1) 

II. DISCUSSION

Whether a claimant is disabled is determined using a five-step evaluation process. To 

establish disability, the claimant must show (1) he has not worked since the alleged 

disability onset date, (2) he has a severe impairment, and (3) his impairment meets or 

equals a listed impairment or (4) his residual functional capacity (RFC) precludes him 

from performing his past work. At step five, the Commissioner must show that the 

claimant is able to perform other work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 

In her decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity 

from October 14, 2004, his alleged onset date, through August 31, 2008, the day before 

Case 4:11-cv-00086-BPV Document 24 Filed 03/08/12 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

he returned to work. Tr. 19. At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff had left ankle trauma, 

status post-surgery times two, an impairment that was “severe” pursuant to the 

regulations. Tr. 19-21. At step three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment 

or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed 

impairments in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. Tr. 21-22. 

 The ALJ found Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform 

sedentary work as follows: 

[I]s able to stand/walk slightly less than two hours a day and sit for six 

to eight hours a day; should avoid climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; is 

able to occasionally stoop and climb ramps; should avoid 

kneeling, crouching and crawling; is able to rarely climb stairs; should 

avoid pushing/pulling of foot controls with his left foot; must 

occasionally use a cane and is able to walk 50 yards at a time on uneven 

surfaces; is able to operate a motor vehicle frequently; should avoid 

unprotected heights and work around moving machinery; should avoid 

extreme ability to function socially and maintain concentration, pace, 

and persistence. 

Tr. 22-26. At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff was unable to perform any of his 

past relevant work as a deputy sheriff and security guard, and dent repair technician. Tr. 

26. At step five, relying on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff could 

perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including 

the jobs of assembler, order clerk, and sorter. Tr. 26-28. Therefore, the ALJ found 

Plaintiff was not disabled at any time from October 14, 2004 through the date of her 

decision. Tr. 28. 

The Commissioner concedes that The ALJ committed reversible error by not 

mentioning Dr. Kuntzelman’s opinions. (Doc. 22, at 4) In particular, the Commissioner 

did not mention the September 2005 treating source opinion of Michael Kuntzelman, 

Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist. Tr. 276-79. Dr. Kuntzelman stated that Plaintiff was able 

to perform, but would have noticeable difficulty (distracted from job activity) from 11 to 

20 percent of the workday or workweek (i.e., more than one hour per day or more than 

one-half day per week) in the following activities: 

Case 4:11-cv-00086-BPV Document 24 Filed 03/08/12 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

• Maintaining attention and concentration for extended periods of time; 

• Working in coordination with or proximity to others without being distracted by 

them; 

• Accepting instructions and responding appropriately to criticism from supervisors; 

and 

• Traveling to unfamiliar places or using public transportation. 

He stated Plaintiff was able to perform, but would have noticeable difficulty 

(distracted from job activity) more than 20 percent of the workday or workweek (i.e., 

more than one hour and up to two hours per day or one-half to one day per week) with 

respect to completing a normal workday and workweek without interruptions 

from psychologically-based symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace without 

an unreasonable number and length of rest periods. Dr. Kuntzelman concluded that 

Plaintiff could work only four hours per day, five days per week. Tr. 276-79. 

 Plaintiff submits that if the Court finds error, the Court has a choice of judicial relief; 

the court can make a finding of clear disability or enter judgment reversing the final 

decision with a remand for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 16, at 14) Similarly, 

Defendant states that a court has discretion to remand for further proceedings when the 

final decision of the Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence or is not free 

from legal error, and that the choice to remand is discretionary and rests upon the utility 

of further proceedings. (Doc. 22, at 4)(citing Bunnell v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 112, 1114, 

1115-16 (9th Cir. 2003). Not surprisingly, Plaintiff petitions the court to find Plaintiff 

clearly disabled at step five, while the Commissioner submits that additional 

administrative proceedings would not only be useful in this case, but are necessary to 

reach an informed decision. 

Plaintiff asserts that the Commissioner has taken the position that the Social Security 

Act does not authorize a court to hold that a claimant is disabled. To the extent Plaintiff 

Case 4:11-cv-00086-BPV Document 24 Filed 03/08/12 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

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 

may have correctly characterized the Commissioner’s argument;1 the Court rejects such a 

narrow restriction on this Court’s authority. The Social Security Act grants a court 

express authority to determine that a plaintiff is entitled to benefits without remanding to 

the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g)(“The 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.”); see also 

Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2000)(Section 405(g) decision to remand 

for further proceedings or direct a payment of decisions based solely upon the 

administrative record necessarily rests in the discretion of the district court (citing 

Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 728 (9th Cir. 1998), and cases discussed therein). 

Plaintiff argues that, on the record, the Court should hold that Weigel was clearly 

disabled at step five in light of Dr. Kuntzelman’s September 2005 opinions at issue. 

(Doc. 16, at 14)(citing Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593-94 (9th Cir. 2004)). The 

Commissioner challenges this assertion as the improper application of the so called 

“credit-as-true” rule, arguing that it is inconsistent with the Act and with the standards 

used by other Courts of Appeals in reviewing denials of Social Security disability 

benefits. 

As Plaintiff submits, however, this Circuit has clearly held that an action should be 

remanded for an award of benefits where the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient 

reasons for rejecting evidence, no outstanding issue remains that must be resolved before 

a determination of disability can be made, and it is clear from the record that the ALJ 

would be required to find the claimant disabled were the rejected evidence credited as 

true. See, e.g., Varney v. Sec’y of HHS, 859 F.2d 1396, 1400 (9th Cir. 1988)(Varney II); 

 

1

 The Court does not find that the Commissioner is making such a broad argument, but rather is making a more narrow argument against the Court’s ability to “credit-as- true” evidence that has not been first considered by the Agency. The Court will address the “credit-as-true” argument in turn, but will first briefly address Plaintiff’s characterization of the broader argument that this Court is without authority to hold that a claimant is disabled. 

Case 4:11-cv-00086-BPV Document 24 Filed 03/08/12 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

see also Benecke, 379 F.3d at 593 (citing Harman, 211 F.3d at 1178). 

The parties concede that the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for 

not considering and therefore by implication, improperly rejecting Dr. Kuntzelman’s 

opinion. No outstanding issue remains to be resolved before determining that Plaintiff is 

entitled to the reinstatement of benefits. The impartial vocational expert testified that 

application of Dr. Kuntzelman’s opinion with regard to Plaintiff’s mental impairments 

together with the ALJ’s RFC with regard to Plaintiff’s non-mental impairments, would 

result in the conclusion that such a person would be unable to perform Plaintiff’s past 

work or other work within the national economy. Tr. 832-33. Defendant did not object to 

this factual finding. Because it is clear that the ALJ would be required to find 

Plaintiff disabled, the Court will remand the case for an award of benefits. See Benecke, 

379 F.3d at 593-95 (remanding for an award of benefits where no outstanding issues 

remain and ALJ would be required to find claimant disabled if evidence is credited); 

Regennitter v. Comm’r of Soc.Sec.Admin., 166 F.3d 1294, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999) (where the 

court "conclude[s] that...a doctor's opinion should have been credited and, if credited, 

would have led to a finding of eligibility, we may order the payment of benefits."); Lester 

v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995), (remanding for payment of benefits because, 

after crediting doctor’s opinion as true, inter alia, “the evidence...demonstrates that...” the 

plaintiff was disabled.); Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990) (remanding 

for payment of benefits where the Secretary did not provide adequate reasons for 

disregarding examining physician’s opinion); Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th

Cir. 1987)(same). As noted by Plaintiff, other than suggesting that the opinions of 

examining psychologist Dr. Kroese would be “substantial evidence” of non-disability on 

remand, the Commissioner presented no argument that a reasonable ALJ could give 

either the “clear and convincing reasons” that Ninth Circuit law requires, see Lester, 81 

F.3d at 830, or the “good reasons” that the regulations require, see 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527(d)(2) (2011), to reject treating psychiatrist Dr. Kuntzelman’s September 2005 

opinions (Doc. 22. at 1-9). Accordingly, all three factors that the Court must consider 

Case 4:11-cv-00086-BPV Document 24 Filed 03/08/12 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

support Plaintiff's request to remand the matter for an award of benefits post September 

20, 2005. Benecke, 379 F.3d at 595 (recognizing that "[r]emanding a disability claim for 

further proceedings can delay much needed income for claimants who are unable to work 

and are entitled to benefits, often subjecting them to 'tremendous financial difficulties 

while awaiting the outcome of their appeals and proceedings on remand.'" (quoting 

Varney II, 859 F.2d at 1398). 

Defendant claims that a remand for further development of the record is in 

order. Plaintiff applied for disability benefits more than six years ago. He has been 

denied at the initial, reconsideration, hearing, and appellate levels of the administration, 

and has been remanded twice to the ALJ already for further proceedings. Plaintiff 

specifically highlighted Dr. Kuntzelman’s restrictions in a memorandum to ALJ prior to 

the most recent administrative hearing, (Tr. 50-53), yet, Defendant improperly evaluated 

Dr. Kuntzelman’s opinion after the third administrative hearing. A remand for further 

proceedings is not warranted. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s decision denying benefits is reversed. 

2. Defendant’s motion to remand pursuant to sentence four (Doc. 21) is DENIED. 

2. The case is remanded to Defendant for an award of benefits. 

3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 6th day of March, 2012. 

Case 4:11-cv-00086-BPV Document 24 Filed 03/08/12 Page 7 of 7