Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-02108/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-02108-0/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 (DIWC)

---

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

Michael David White,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

No. CV-21-02108-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff Michael White seeks judicial review of the 

Social Security Administration’s decision denying his application for Supplemental 

Security Income benefits. The Court must affirm the agency’s decision if it is free of 

harmful legal error and supported by substantial evidence. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 

630 (9th Cir. 2007). After reviewing the record, the Court finds clearly harmful error

requiring a remand for an automatic award of benefits.

White argues that the agency’s administrative law judge (“ALJ”) made harmful 

errors in his weighing of White’s symptom testimony and the medical opinion evidence, 

but the Court does not need to resolve those issues in order to rule in White’s favor. For 

purposes of this order, the Court can assume the ALJ properly weighed White’s symptom 

testimony and the medical opinion evidence. The Court can even assume the ALJ properly 

formulated White’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). Still, the agency’s decision is 

unsupportable.

The ALJ asked the vocational expert whether an individual with White’s RFC could 

Case 2:21-cv-02108-DLR Document 16 Filed 11/15/23 Page 1 of 2
- 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

sustain White’s past relevant work as a software engineer, then asked if such an individual

could sustain any other work within the national economy. (AR. 17-18.) The vocational 

expert opined that an individual with White’s impairments could not sustain work as a 

software engineer or any other full-time work in the national economy. (AR. 18.) In his 

written decision, the ALJ said he agreed with the vocational expert’s opinions. Yet, the 

ALJ inexplicably reached the opposite conclusion, finding White was not disabled because 

he could sustain his past work as a software engineer. (AR. 83.) The ALJ’s conclusion is 

clear error because it contradicts the evidentiary record and the opinion of the vocational 

expert with which the ALJ said he agreed. And this error is harmful because, had the ALJ’s 

decision reflected his agreement with the vocational expert, he would have found White 

disabled due to his inability to sustain his past relevant work or other work in the national 

economy. Although, an “automatic award of benefits in a disability benefits case is a rare 

and prophylactic exception to the well-established ordinary remand rule” Leon v. Berryhill, 

880 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2017), here the Court must remand for an award of benefits 

because it is clear that the ALJ’s factual findings compel the conclusion that White is 

disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

IT IS ORDERED that the ALJ’s decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED for 

an award of benefits. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate 

this case.

Dated this 15th day of November, 2023.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:21-cv-02108-DLR Document 16 Filed 11/15/23 Page 2 of 2