Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04377/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04377-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN F PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v

MICHAEL J ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

No C 05-4377 VRW

 ORDER

On October 25, 2005, plaintiff John F Patterson, acting

pro se, filed this action seeking judicial review of the final

determination of the decision of the Appeals Council denying his

application for social security benefits. Doc # 1. 

On November 10, 2005, the court granted plaintiff’s

request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered service

of the complaint on the defendant. Summons was returned executed. 

Doc # 8, 9, 10. On May 4, 2006, the defendant commissioner filed

her answer. Doc # 11. Plaintiff thereafter failed to file his

motion for summary judgment as required by the court’s Procedural

Case 3:05-cv-04377-VRW Document 20 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Order and Local Rule 16-5. On August 31, 2006, the court issued an

order to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack

of prosecution. Doc # 12. 

On December 28, 2006, after obtaining an extension of time

and securing counsel to represent him, plaintiff filed his motion

for summary judgment or remand, asserting that the administrative

law judge’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Doc

# 17. In response, defendant Linda S McMahon, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security, filed a motion to remand the case to the Social

Security Administration for further administrative proceedings

pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC § 405(g). Doc # 19. The motion

recites that the Social Security Administration’s Office of

disability Adjudication and Review had requested the remand and that

“[d]espite good faith efforts, the parties have been unable to agree

to a stipulated voluntary remand, thus necessitating this motion for

voluntary remand and the Court’s involvement and adjudication.” Doc

# 19 at 2. Plaintiff, however, has filed no response to defendant’s

motion. Given that defendant recites that plaintiff would not

stipulate to a remand, the court is left to assume that plaintiff

believes he is entitled to an award of benefits without further

administrative proceedings. The court is, moreover, left to attempt

to discern the basis for this unusual remedy since plaintiff did not

address the point directly in his moving papers. 

Plaintiff’s moving papers raise two challenges to the

decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at issue. First, he

contends that the ALJ’s determination that his subjective complaints

were not credible was not supported by substantial evidence. Pl’s

Memo (Doc #17 at 4-8. Second, he contends that the ALJ stated that

Case 3:05-cv-04377-VRW Document 20 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

he would proffer a post-hearing MRE and consultative neurological

examination report to the medical expert, Dr Louis Lesko, for a

written report to be included in the record, yet failed to do so. 

Id at 8-9. 

Defendant concedes both points, Def’s Memo (Doc #19) at 4-

5, but correctly points out that a court may exercise its discretion

to direct an award of benefits only “where the record has been fully

developed and where further administrative proceedings would serve

no useful purpose,” citing Smolen v Chater, 80 F3d 1273, 1292 (9th

Cir 1996). Stated another way, a 

district court should credit evidence that was

rejected during the administrative process and

remand for an immediate award of benefits if (1)

the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient

reasons for rejecting the evidence; (2) there

are no outstanding issues that need to be

resolved before a determination of disability

can be made; and (3) it is clear from the record

that the ALJ would be required to find the

claimant disabled were such evidence credited. 

Benecke v Barnhart, 379 F3d 587, 593 (9th Cir 2004). 

It appears that this case fails to satisfy the second of

these three criteria given the ALJ’s failure to provide the SSA’s

medical expert with the reports he requested and to obtain the

expert’s final report before issuing a decision. Accordingly, it

appears that remand is the appropriate remedy. 

This matter is ordered remanded to the Social Security

Administration for a new hearing and decision. The Office of

Disability Adjudication and Review should remand this case to an ALJ

and direct him or her to proffer the post-hearing evidence to

plaintiff’s counsel and to Dr Lesko and request from Dr Lesko a

complete medical opinion based on all the evidence in the record. 

Case 3:05-cv-04377-VRW Document 20 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

The ALJ should re-evaluate plaintiff’s credibility regarding his

subjective complaints, re-evaluate plaintiff’s residual functional

capacity and, if necessary, consult with a vocational expert. These

steps should be expedited to the greatest extent possible consistent

with full and fair reconsideration as directed by this order. 

Plaintiff’s motion for remand is GRANTED. Defendant’s

motion for REMAND is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED.

The clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04377-VRW Document 20 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 4