Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01776/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01776-0/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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Debra Faye Benton, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-01776-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Remand for 

Further Proceedings (Doc. 23), to which Plaintiff Debra Faye Benton filed a Response 

(Doc. 24). 

 An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff’s Application for a Period 

of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act 

(“the Act”) on March 18, 2013 (Docs. 11-13, R. at 10-23), and that decision was upheld 

by the Appeals Council on June 10, 2014 (R. at 1-6). After Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s 

decision to this Court and filed an Opening Brief (Doc. 16, Pl.’s Br.), Defendant 

conceded that the ALJ made certain errors in reaching her decision and moved to remand 

for further development of the record and because the present record leaves doubt as to 

whether Plaintiff is disabled under the Act (Doc. 23, Mot.). In response, Plaintiff argues 

that no outstanding issues remain and the Court should find Plaintiff disabled under the 

Act and remand for a calculation of benefits. (Doc. 24, Resp.) 

 Plaintiff asks that the Court apply the “credit-as-true” rule, which would result in 

remand of Plaintiff’s case for payment of benefits rather than further proceedings. (Resp. 

Case 2:14-cv-01776-JJT Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

at 2.) The credit-as-true rule only applies in cases that raise “rare circumstances” that 

permit the Court to depart from the ordinary remand rule under which the case is 

remanded for additional investigation or explanation. Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099–102 (9th Cir. 2014). These rare circumstances arise when 

three elements are present. First, the ALJ must fail to provide legally sufficient reasons 

for rejecting medical evidence. Id. at 1100. Second, the record must be fully developed, 

there must be no outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination of 

disability can be made, and further administrative proceedings would not be useful. Id. at 

1101. Further proceedings are considered useful when there are conflicts and ambiguities 

that must be resolved. Id. Third, if the above elements are met, the Court may “find[] the 

relevant testimony credible as a matter of law . . . and then determine whether the record, 

taken as a whole, leaves ‘not the slightest uncertainty as to the outcome of [the] 

proceeding.’” Id. (citations omitted). 

 The Court has reviewed the record in its entirety and agrees with Defendant that 

the record is not fully developed and that uncertainty remains as to whether Plaintiff is 

disabled under the Act. For example, the ALJ credited the report of reviewing physician 

Dr. Lucy Sauer, but Plaintiff argues that Dr. Sauer’s medical license is cancelled and, as 

such, the ALJ should have discounted her report as one prepared by an unacceptable 

medical source. (Pl.’s Br. at 14.) Indeed, in her Opening Brief, Plaintiff acknowledges 

that the ALJ did not fully and fairly develop the record as to Dr. Sauer and this matter 

should be remanded to allow questioning of Dr. Sauer as a reviewing physician. (Pl.’s Br. 

at 18-19.) 

 The Court agrees with the parties that the reasons the ALJ listed for assigning little 

weight to the records of Drs. Medeiros, Wightman and Baker (see R. at 21) were 

insufficient, and the ALJ must re-evaluate Plaintiff’s credibility in light of the medical 

evidence and fill in gaps and ambiguities in Plaintiff’s testimony. Moreover, the ALJ 

stopped her analysis at step four of the five-step evaluative process under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) by finding that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work. (R. at 

Case 2:14-cv-01776-JJT Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

22.) Considering the potentially reweighed medical evidence and Plaintiff’s testimony, 

the ALJ must decide if additional testimony from a Vocational Expert is required to 

determine whether Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work or any other work in the 

national economy under steps four and five of the evaluative process, 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv)-(v). 

 Beyond the uncertainty left by gaps in the record, uncertainty remains as to 

whether Plaintiff is disabled under the Act. The Court notes that certain examination 

results, including MRIs and x-rays, show that Plaintiff’s physical condition is not as 

severe as would be expected for the degree of pain Plaintiff sometimes alleged, and 

treatment with physical therapy and medication improved Plaintiff’s condition markedly. 

(See, e.g., R. at 361, 487, 489, 560, 772.) While Dr. Sauer relied in part on these records 

to reach her functional capacity findings, the relevance of her report to a final 

determination of Plaintiff’s disability under the Act must be resolved, as noted above. 

 For all the foregoing reasons, the Court must remand this matter to the ALJ for 

further development of the record and a disability determination. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant Commissioner of Social 

Security’s Motion for Remand for Further Proceedings (Doc. 23). The Court remands this 

matter for further proceedings consistent with this Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment 

accordingly and close this case. 

 Dated this 17th day of March, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01776-JJT Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 3