Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01776/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01776-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT—No. C-09-01776 RMW

TER

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 8/17/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JULIAN GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

No. C-09-01776 RMW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR REMAND AND DENYING

DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re Docket Nos. 15, 17]

Plaintiff Julian Gonzales brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) to

obtain review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his claim for

disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. 

Plaintiff seeks an order remanding the case to the Commissioner with instructions to pay benefits or

alternatively, with instructions for further administrative proceedings. Presently before the court are

the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Pursuant to this court's procedural order for

review of social security actions, the motions have been submitted for decision without oral

argument. Having considered the parties' papers and the administrative record, the court grants

plaintiff's motion to remand and denies the Commissioner's motion. 

The ALJ based his determination that plaintiff was not disabled in part on evidence that is

not part of the administrative record. Specifically, the ALJ placed heavy reliance upon a January 28,

Case 5:09-cv-01776-RMW Document 19 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT—No. C-09-01776 RMW

TER 2

2003 examination and report by Dr. Acevedo. The Commissioner concedes that Dr. Acevedo's

report is not part of the administrative record. Defendant's Motion at 3. The Commissioner

suggests, however, that the report was not relevant to the applicable time period, after plaintiff

turned 18. Id. at 6. The Commissioner offers no explanation, however, why it would not be error

for the ALJ to have placed such heavy reliance on evidence that was not relevant to the disability

determination, and thus, the Commissioner's argument is not persuasive. 

The administrative law judge is required to base the decision on the evidence offered at the

hearing or otherwise included in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.953. The Commissioner cannot base

his decision on evidence that is outside the record. Yang v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 213 (9th Cir. 1994);

Day v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1975). 

It is unclear whether Dr. Acevedo actually examined plaintiff and for some unexplained

reason his report did not make it into the administrative record. It is equally possible, however, that

Dr. Acevedo never examined plaintiff and that the examination was of another social security

claimant. What is undeniable, however, is that the report played a heavy role in the ALJ's

determination that plaintiff is not disabled and that the report is not part of the evidentiary record. 

Accordingly, it is appropriate to remand for further administrative proceedings.

The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and this case is remanded for further

administrative proceedings consistent herewith. On remand, the ALJ shall not consider any

evidence outside of the administrative record and shall reconsider his opinion in light of only the

evidence in the record. The ALJ may, however, open the record to admit additional relevant

evidence and may conduct further hearing.

While remand is required, however, the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to require

that the further proceedings be conducted before a different ALJ, and plaintiff's request to this effect,

raised in his reply brief, is denied.

8/17/10

DATED:

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-01776-RMW Document 19 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 2