Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00235/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00235-0/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

Teena Lynne Murray, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 13-235-TUC-LAB

ORDER

Pending before the court is the Commissioner’s motion to remand filed on December 16,

2013. (Doc. 22)

The plaintiff filed this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner for

Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 1) In the pending motion, the

Commissioner moves that this court remand the action for further proceedings pursuant to

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 22)

The Magistrate Judge presides over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) having

received the written consent of both parties. See FED.R.CIV.P. 73; (Doc. 10)

Discussion

On April 9, 2013, the plaintiff, Teena Lynne Murray, filed this action for review of the

final decision of the Commissioner for Social Security denying her claim to disability insurance

Case 4:13-cv-00235-LAB Document 28 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

benefits. (Doc. 1) She filed her opening brief on October 15, 2013. (Doc. 18) Along with her

brief, she submitted additional evidence for the court’s consideration. Id. Apparently, after her

claim was denied on February 19, 2010 by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Milan Dostal, she

filed a subsequent application for disability benefits, which was granted by a different ALJ.

(Doc. 18-1)

On December 16, 2013, the Commissioner filed the pending motion to remand the action

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 22) She concedes the Residual

Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment performed by ALJ Dostal was error. The subsequent

hypothetical given by the ALJ to the vocational expert was also error.

The Commissioner moves that this court remand the case to allow the ALJ to take

additional evidence, hold another hearing, reevaluate the claimant’s RFC, and revisit his

decision that Murray can perform past work. (Doc. 22, p. 2)

Murray, however, opposes remand for further administrative proceedings because she

thinks the case should be remanded for payment of benefits. Murray believes the ALJ failed

to properly evaluate the opinion of the treating doctors and her own subjective testimony of

disability. (Doc. 26) If this evidence were credited as true, she argues, the case would be

remanded for payment of benefits, not for further proceedings. Moreover, she argues the

additional evidence that she submitted along with her opening brief further supports the opinion

of her treating doctors. 

In general, if the court finds the decision of the ALJ denying benefits was error, the court

may remand for payment of benefits rather than for further proceedings, provided “the record

has been developed fully and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful

purpose.” Strauss v. Commissioner of the Social Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir.

2011). If, however, “enhancement of the record would be useful,” the court may remand for

further administrative proceedings. Id.

Here, Murray argues the ALJ erred by discounting the opinion of her treating doctors and

her subjective testimony of disability. Murray supports her argument, however, with evidence

that postdates the decision of the ALJ. This evidence cannot be considered unless the action

Case 4:13-cv-00235-LAB Document 28 Filed 06/10/14 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

is remanded to allow the new evidence to be incorporated into the administrative record. See

42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Liaga v. Astrue, 2009 WL 2355762, 1 (C.D.Cal. 2009) (“[T]he Court

lacks jurisdiction to reverse the Commissioner’s decision based on evidence that is not part of

the administrative record.”). Accordingly, the court finds that “enhancement of the record

would be useful” and therefore “[r]emand for further administrative proceedings is appropriate.”

See Strauss, 635 F.3d at 1138. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion to remand filed on December 16, 2013

is GRANTED. (Doc. 22) The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the case is

remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

The Appeals Council will remand the matter to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to

develop the record further and arrive at a new decision. The Appeals Council will direct the ALJ

to: give Plaintiff an opportunity for a hearing; obtain additional evidence relevant to the period

at issue; reevaluate the residual functional capacity; and determine whether Plaintiff can

perform her past relevant work.

The Commissioner’s reevaluation is limited to the petitioner’s claim to disability benefits

for the period between July 1, 2006 and February 19, 2010. The Clerk of the Court is instructed

to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2014.

Case 4:13-cv-00235-LAB Document 28 Filed 06/10/14 Page 3 of 3