Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00564/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00564-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Madlyn Scott
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MADLYN SCOTT, on behalf of D.S., a 

minor,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00564-SAB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL, DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING FOR 

FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE 

PROCEEDINGS

(ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Madlyn Scott (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying the application for 

supplemental security income for her child, D.S. (“D.S.”) under the Social Security Act. The 

matter is currently before the Court on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted, without oral 

argument, to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.

1

D.S.’s impairments include attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning 

disorder, and depression. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s appeal from the 

 

1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (See ECF Nos. 9, 12.)

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 1 of 13
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

administrative decision of the Commissioner is granted in part.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 24, 2012, an application for supplemental security income was protectively filed 

on behalf of D.S., with an alleged disability beginning on March 1, 2012. (AR 174-83.) The 

application was denied initially on January 14, 2013, and on reconsideration on June 12, 2013. 

(AR 121-27.) Plaintiff and D.S. requested and received a hearing before Administrative Law 

Judge Catherine R. Lazuran (“ALJ”). Plaintiff and D.S. appeared for a video hearing on August 

11, 2014. (AR 38-98.) On November 21, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding D.S. was not 

disabled. (AR 19-32.) On March 4, 2016, the Appeals Council denied the request for review 

(AR 1-5.) 

A. Hearing Testimony

Plaintiff and D.S. appeared with their counsel at a video hearing before the ALJ on

August 11, 2014. (AR 38-71.) D.S. testified as follows:

She was eleven years old at the time of the hearing. (AR 43.) She has two older sisters 

and one younger brother. (AR 44.) She just finished fifth grade and somewhat likes school. 

(AR 44.) Her favorite subject is writing and she somewhat likes to read. (AR 44.) Her grades 

were Cs and Ds in the 2013-2014 school year. (AR 45.) She received Ds in math. (AR 45.) 

The school is concerned about her grades. (AR 51.) She is in regular classes, except for English, 

which she is in an ELD class, which is a lower learning class that is supposed to help her 

increase her grades. (AR 45, 51.) She started it during the 2013-2014 school year and it is 

somewhat helping her. (AR 45.) She wants to be a writer when she grows up. (AR 50.) 

She is unable to pay attention in school because she gets easily distracted. (AR 45, 50-

51.) She talks while the teacher is talking even though the teacher tells her not to. (AR 51.) She 

often does not do her homework because she does not pay attention in class and does not know 

the answers. (AR 45-46.) She does not always ask her mother to help her with her homework 

because she does not think it is important. (AR 46.) Her mother tries to oversee D.S. and help 

her finish or see that she finishes it. (AR 46.) 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 2 of 13
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

She can watch television shows until her bedtime. (AR 46.) She can watch TV for 30 or 

60 minutes at a time. (AR 46-47.) She says she does not go to movies all the time. (AR 47.) 

Her mother reads to her and she is not able to pay attention all the time because she does not 

think it is important. (AR 47.) She can run, roller-skate, and bicycle, but cannot swim. (AR 48-

49.) She can write in cursive, get dressed on her own, take a shower or bath on her own, and 

make a sandwich or use a microwave. (AR 48.) Sometimes she chooses her own clothes in the 

morning and other times her mother or sister helps her. (AR 48.) Sometimes she sweeps the 

house and cleans her room, but she sometimes has to be reminded. (AR 48-49.) 

She has friends and she sees them outside of school. (AR 47.) She attends other 

children’s birthday parties. (AR 47.) She does not always get along with her siblings, and 

specifically her older sister. (AR 47-48.) She sometimes gets along with her mother. (AR 48.) 

She takes medicine and she knows that it helps her. (AR 49.) She has one medication 

that she takes at bedtime that makes her drowsy so that she can sleep better. (AR 49.) She takes 

a medication in the morning that helps her focus. (AR 49.) She is taking more medication than 

she used to. (AR 52.) Sometimes the medication works when she lets her “pill kick in,” but 

other times it does not work when she is not listening. (AR 52.) She sees a doctor for the 

medication and she sees a counselor outside of school. (AR 51.) Her counselor from the mental 

health clinic comes to her school once a week and talks to all the kids that are treated. (AR 51-

52.) She thinks that it helps. (AR 52.) 

She missed much school in the 2013-2014 year because of her behavior. (AR 49.) She 

does not know how much she missed. (AR 49-50.) She has been suspended for her behavior, 

which included acting out and shouting, but she does not know how many times. (AR 50.) 

Sometimes she tries to stop her behavior, and sometimes she gives up. (AR 50.) 

Plaintiff also testified at the hearing. She testified as follows: 

She has lived with D.S. for D.S.’s whole life. (AR 53.) She works thirty hours a week as 

an instructional aide at a different grade school from the one D.S. attends. (AR 53-54.) D.S.’s 

siblings are 18, 14, and 6. (AR 54.) D.S. started the ELD class around 2010 and Plaintiff thinks 

that D.S. is in it 3 or more days for 1 hour each day. (AR 54.) D.S. is in regular classes, except 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 3 of 13
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

for the ELD class. (AR 56.) An after-school program helps D.S. with her homework. (AR 56.) 

Plaintiff checks to see if D.S. gets her homework done, but D.S. only gets it done sometimes. 

(AR 56.) Plaintiff asked D.S. if she needed help and she would say no, but then Plaintiff 

received phone calls from the teacher saying that D.S. had not done her homework. (AR 56.) 

After receiving the phone calls, Plaintiff is not always more careful because she is tired. (AR 

57.) 

When asked about what D.S.’s school says about her grades, Plaintiff testified that they 

do not really tell her much. (AR 63-64.) The school “really tr[ies] with her” by taking her out of 

class and giving her extra help. (AR 64.) She says that D.S.’s behavior and social skills are the 

focus instead of academics at this time. (AR 64.) Plaintiff testified that D.S.’s conduct grade 

improved because she has a very lenient teacher who really wanted D.S. to succeed. (AR 66.)

D.S. does not have an I.E.P. (AR 55.) Plaintiff attempted to put in a request to the 

school district the year before, but they told her to put the request in when school starts. (AR 

55.) However, she did not have the time to put the request in. (AR 55.) The vice principal 

suggested to Plaintiff that she put a request in for an IEP for D.S., but she has not had the time. 

(AR 55.) As far as Plaintiff understands it, she has to put the request in for an IEP. (AR 55.) 

Plaintiff said D.S. had approximately five to six suspensions in the 2013-2014 school 

year, and then later in the hearing, said four or five out-of-school suspensions. (AR 57, 74.) 

D.S. had approximately ten suspensions in the 2012-2013 school year. (AR 57.) D.S. was 

medicated at the time of the suspensions. (AR 64.) Plaintiff testified that she did not request 

D.S.’s suspension records, bring those, or send them to her counsel. (AR 57.) The vice principal 

has called Plaintiff on several occasions to pick D.S. up, but because Plaintiff was working, she 

could not. (AR 57.) It was bad enough that two times in the 2013-2014 year and four times in 

the 2012-2013 year, the vice principal was willing to bring D.S. home herself, but because 

Plaintiff was at work, that did not happen. (AR 57-58.) 

Plaintiff testified that the school really tries to be lenient with D.S. and they try their best 

not to suspend D.S. unless it is really serious. (AR 63.) D.S.’s last incident at school was the 

May 21, 2014 incident, which was the last day D.S. went to school. (AR 64-65.) D.S. was not 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 4 of 13
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

5

allowed to attend the last two days of school when they were having a party because of her 

behavior. (AR 65.) Some of D.S.’s incidents have involved violence, which D.S. also exhibits 

at home. (AR 66.) 

When asked why the attendance records do not reflect that number of out-of-school 

suspensions because there are only three absences all year, Plaintiff stated that she believed that 

the school considered out-of-school suspensions as absences and that D.S. was only absent 

because of her behavior. (AR 74.) The only times that D.S. missed school during the 2013-2014 

school year were when she was suspended. (AR 62.) Plaintiff testified that D.S. would go back 

to school the next day. (AR 74.)

D.S. receives counseling at Clinica Sierra Vista Behavioral Center, also known as Kern 

County Mental Health. (AR 58.) She last attended counseling about two weeks before the 

hearing. (AR 59.) Plaintiff started D.S. at Clinica Sierra Vista because D.S. was verbally 

suicidal, which has declined. (AR 65.) 

D.S. is on Clonidine, Strattera, Risperidone, and another medication. (AR 59.) A couple 

of the medications are to help D.S. focus and to settle down. (AR 59.) She has been on the 

medications for at least four months. (AR 59.) The medications are prescribed by Dr. Bright at 

Clinica Sierra Vista. (AR 60.) The only side effect to the medications is drowsiness, which is at 

morning and night, but more so at night. (AR 60.) D.S. takes her medication in the morning and 

at night. (AR 61.) D.S. takes something for sleep. (AR 60.) The doctor has increased the 

medication several times, which has helped “little by little.” (AR 60.) Plaintiff is nervous for 

D.S.’s upcoming school years because there will be older kids at middle school. (AR 65.) 

D.S. is unable to pay attention when Plaintiff reads to her or when D.S. is at home. (AR 

60.) She very rarely gets along with other children and has few friends. (AR 61.) The only 

friends she sees outside of school are the friends that reside in their apartment complex. (AR 

61.) D.S. gets along with her siblings on few occasions. (AR 61.) When D.S. does not take her 

medication, she is very sporadic, very loud, and easily agitated. (AR 61.) D.S. takes her 

medication daily, but the timeframe is not consistent because she receives it later during summer. 

(AR 61-62.) Plaintiff has to tell D.S. several times to do her chores, and when she does, it is 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 5 of 13
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

6

very little and with conflict. (AR 62.) 

Medical Expert Dr. Nancy Winfrey also testified.2 She testified as follows: 

She is licensed in clinical psychology. (AR 73.) She testified that she did not notice any 

conflicts in the medical evidence, but later testified that D.S.’s GAF of 33 does not match the 

record. (AR 78, 93-94.) She testified that her client with a GAF of 33 would be in the hospital. 

(AR 93-94.) She opined that D.S. has a depressive disorder, not otherwise specific, and ADHD. 

(AR 78.) She does not think that D.S. meets or equals any Listing. (AR 79.) 

She found that D.S. was less than marked in acquiring and using information, because her 

general aptitude or I.Q. is in the moderate range, which is above the marked range. (AR 79.) 

D.S. had a full-scale score of 78 with her adaptive functioning and her daily living skills and 

communicative skills level is in the average range. (AR 79-80.) She also considered that D.S. 

does not have an IEP. (AR 80.) She testified that the school can initiate an IEP. (AR 80.) 

D.S.’s grades were pretty bad, but are getting better. (AR 80.) D.S.’s grades may be affected by 

ADHD, especially if it is not fully treated. (AR 80-81.) She testified that D.S.’s grades may go 

up if she has more finely tuned treatment for ADHD. (AR 81.) 

She opined that D.S. was marked in attending and completing tasks. (AR 81.) She 

testified that she does not think that D.S. is getting the full benefit from treatment because it does 

not seem to be working that well and her social behavior is affected. (AR 81.) 

She found that D.S. was less than marked in interacting and relating with others. (AR 81-

82.) She testified that she did not see very much serious intervention by the school and/or 

family. (AR 82.) The school had not put together an IEP or even a 504 plan. (AR 82, 86.) It 

does not look like there has been much treatment with the family other than medication 

management. (AR 82.) She assessed this rating because of D.S.’s discipline problems at school 

and behavior at home. (AR 82-84.) She did not rate this category marked because it does not 

look like in the school’s view it is at the marked degree. (AR 86.) She also said that she does 

 

2

Prior to Dr. Winfrey’s testimony, the ALJ summarized Exhibit 13E, which Dr. Winfrey did not have. (AR 66-69, 

73.) Plaintiff and D.S.’s counsel also added to the ALJ’s summary. (AR 69-73.) The ALJ also discussed Exhibit 

5F with Dr. Winfrey because Dr. Winfrey did not have that exhibit, but it was discovered that Exhibit 5F had 

duplicate records in Exhibit 2F, which Dr. Winfrey had. (AR 75-76.) 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 6 of 13
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

7

not have any treatment records, which can be another way to assess that. (AR 86-87.) Also, she 

considered that both D.S. and Plaintiff said that D.S. has some friends. (AR 87.) Other 

considerations were that there have not been any legal problems and “other things” that she 

looked at that D.S. does not have. (AR 87.) She does not have a specific number of incidents of 

fighting, biting, cursing, disrespect, and walking out of classrooms that would qualify as a 

marked limitation. (AR 87-88.) She considers the degree of the incidents and the frequency and 

the school’s response. (AR 88.) She indicated that a school typically instigates an IEP when 

they see that things are in the very serious range. (AR 88.) 

She found that D.S. has no limitation for manipulating objects. (AR 82.) She found that 

D.S. was less than marked in caring for self. (AR 82.) D.S.’s suicidal ideation is reflected in 

that rating. (AR 82-83.) She does not rate health and physical well-being because she is not a 

physician. (AR 83.) She did not notice any problems with compliance with medical treatment. 

(AR 83.) 

She put less stock in the assessment by Dr. Gary Bartell during the comprehensive 

psychiatric evaluation because the language was similar to the mental status medical source 

statement used for adults and not developmentally appropriate for a child. (88-93.) She 

disagreed with Dr. Bartell’s consultative examination and the GAF finding of 33 because of the 

school and school records. (AR 96.) She noted that there is no IEP for a behavioral plan and she 

found that D.S. had some strengths that other kids might not have. (AR 96.) She noted that the 

basis of D.S.’s social difficulties were from the ADHD, which she does not think has been fully 

treated. (AR 96.) 

B. ALJ’s Findings

The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

 D.S. was born on May 8, 2003. Therefore, she was a school-age child on May 24, 2012, 

the date the application was filed, and is currently a school-age child;

 D.S. has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 24, 2012, the application 

date;

 D.S. has the following severe impairments: ADHD, learning disorder, and a depressive 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 7 of 13
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

8

disorder;

 D.S. does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically 

equals one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1;

 D.S. does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that functionally equals 

the severity of the listings; and

 D.S. has not been disabled, as defined in the Social Security Act, since May 24, 2012, the 

date the application was filed.

(AR 19-32.)

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

Congress has provided that an individual may obtain judicial review of any final decision 

of the Commissioner of Social Security regarding entitlement to benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

In reviewing findings of fact in respect to the denial of benefits, this court “reviews the 

Commissioner’s final decision for substantial evidence, and the Commissioner’s decision will be 

disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. 

Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence” means more than a 

scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which, 

considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Flaten v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

“[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm 

simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Hill, 698 F.3d at 1159 (quoting 

Robbins v. Social Security Administration, 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). It is not this 

Court’s function to second guess the ALJ’s conclusions and substitute the court’s judgment for 

the ALJ’s. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is 

susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be 

upheld.”).

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 8 of 13
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

9

IV.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff raises three issues in this appeal. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred: (1) by 

failing to have a medical expert review D.S.’s file in its entirety; (2) in discounting Dr. Bartell’s 

opinion; and (3) by discrediting D.S. and Plaintiff. Defendant counters that the ALJ properly 

developed the record, the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Bartell’s opinion, and the ALJ properly 

evaluated credibility. 

A. The Matter Should be Remanded Based on the Review of the Evidence by 

Dr. Winfrey

Plaintiff argues that medical expert, Dr. Winfrey, did not have the benefit of reviewing 

the disciplinary records that are exhibit 13E and reviewing the IEP records that were added to the 

administrative record by the Appeals Council as exhibit 15E. Plaintiff contends that the 

Commissioner did not make a reasonable effort to seek a case evaluation based on the record in 

its entirety because no doctor reviewed the IEP evidence. Defendant counters that the ALJ made 

reasonable efforts to ensure that a qualified medical specialist evaluated D.S.’s claim by eliciting 

Dr. Winfrey’s opinion. Defendant argues that AR 04-01(9) does not require that a medical 

professional review every piece of evidence in the record. 

Section 1382c(a)(3)(I) of the Social Security Act provides:

In making any determination under this title ... with respect to the disability of an 

individual who has not attained the age of 18 years ..., the Commissioner of Social 

Security shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that a qualified pediatrician or 

other individual who specializes in a field of medicine appropriate to the 

disability of the individual (as determined by the Commissioner of Social 

Security) evaluates the case of such individual.

Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 42 U.S.C. 

1382c(a)(3)(I) (emphasis added)). 

In Howard, the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter because it found that the ALJ did not 

attempt to have the minor child’s case evaluated in its entirety. Howard, 341 F.3d at 1014. The 

Ninth Circuit interpreted Section 1382(A)(3)(I) of the Social Security Act to mean that an ALJ is 

required to make reasonable efforts to obtain a case evaluation, based on the record in its 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 9 of 13
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

10

entirety, from a pediatrician or other appropriate specialist, rather than simply evaluating the 

evidence in the case record on his or her own. Id.

After Howard, the Social Security Administration issued Social Security Acquiescence 

Ruling 04-1(9), which states that both “ALJs and AAJs (when the Appeals Council makes a 

decision) must make reasonable efforts to ensure that a qualified pediatrician or other individual 

who specializes in a field of medicine appropriate to the disability of the individual (as identified 

by the ALJ or AAJ) evaluates the case of the individual.” AR 04-1(9).

Here, Dr. Winfrey did not receive a copy of Exhibit 13E prior to the hearing. (AR 42.) 

During the hearing, the ALJ summarized parts of Exhibit 13E. (AR 66-69.) However, the ALJ’s 

summary did not contain all of the incidents involved in Exhibit 13E. After the ALJ said her 

summary of Exhibit 13E, Plaintiff and D.S.’s counsel had a chance to comment and summarize 

Exhibit 13E. (AR 69-73.) Plaintiff and D.S.’s counsel indicated that the ALJ did not state all of 

the things on the forms and only selected a few of them. (AR 72.) The ALJ indicated that it was 

counsel’s fault for not providing Exhibit 13E earlier. (AR 72.) After the summary of Exhibit 

13E, Plaintiff and D.S.’s counsel requested that Exhibit 13E be sent to the medical expert so she 

could see it and not have to rely just on the “brief summary of them described on the record.” 

(AR 77.) However, the ALJ did not send Exhibit 13E to Dr. Winfrey. Although Defendant 

contends that Plaintiff and D.S.’s counsel discussed the disciplinary records in detail with Dr. 

Winfrey, the discussion was a general one and did not specify the number of incidents or any 

details of the incidents. (AR 85-86.) 

When the Court compares Exhibit 13E to the ALJ’s summary and Plaintiff and D.S.’s 

counsel’s discussion and comments on Exhibit 13E, there are details of incidents as well as entire 

incidents that were not discussed with Dr. Winfrey. 

The ALJ relied upon Dr. Winfrey’s opinion to find that D.S. has less than marked 

limitation in interacting and relating with others. (AR 28-29.) While Defendant contends that 

Dr. Winfrey opined that Plaintiff did not have a marked limitation in social interaction based on 

D.S.’s friendships and the lack of school intervention in the form of a 504 plan or IEP, Dr. 

Winfrey also cited the fact that Plaintiff had no legal trouble and “other things, too that I looked 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 10 of 13
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

11

at that would give someone a marked rating in my mind that she doesn’t have.” (AR 86-87.) 

When Plaintiff and D.S.’s counsel asked Dr. Winfrey how many episodes at school of fighting, 

biting, cursing, disrespect, and walking out of classrooms would qualify as a marked limitation, 

Dr. Winfrey responded that there is not a number, per se, but it is a “combination of the degree of 

the incidents and the frequency, as well as the school’s response.” (AR 87-88.) Dr. Winfrey 

then testified that a school typically instigates or should instigate an IEP when it sees problems in 

a marked or a severe range. (AR 88.) Therefore, the Court finds that D.S.’s disciplinary records 

may have factored into Dr. Winfrey’s decision to rate D.S. as less than marked in social 

interaction. 

The Court finds that it cannot say that a review of Exhibit 13E in its entirety may not 

have changed Dr. Winfrey’s opinion. Therefore, the Court finds that this matter should be 

remanded. 

B. The Action Shall be Remanded for Further Administrative Proceedings

Plaintiff seeks a remand under §405(g), but she does not specify whether she is seeking a 

remand for benefits or a remand for further administrative proceedings. Plaintiff did say in her 

discussion of D.S.’s file, that the matter should be remanded so a medical expert can review 

D.S.’s file in its entirety. Defendant contends that any remand should be for further 

administrative proceedings. 

The ordinary remand rule provides that when “the record before the agency does not 

support the agency action, ... the agency has not considered all relevant factors, or ... the 

reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the record 

before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for 

additional investigation or explanation.” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 

1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014). This applies equally in Social Security cases. Treichler, 775 F.3d at 

1099. 

Under the Social Security Act “courts are empowered to affirm, modify, or reverse a 

decision by the Commissioner ‘with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.’ ” Garrison 

v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1019 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 11 of 13
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

12

405(g)). The decision to remand for benefits is discretionary. Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1100. In 

Social Security cases, courts generally remand with instructions to calculate and award benefits 

when it is clear from the record that the claimant is entitled to benefits. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 

1019. 

In this instance, it is not clear that D.S. would be entitled to benefits. The record needs to

be further developed regarding D.S.’s school disciplinary records at Exhibit 13E. The Court also 

notes that on remand, the entire record should be considered, including D.S.’s IEP at Exhibit 

15E. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action shall be remanded for further administrative

proceedings. 

C. The Court Declines to Address Plaintiff’s Arguments Regarding Credibility 

and Dr. Bartell’s Opinion 

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating her testimony and that the ALJ erred in 

rejecting Dr. Bartell’s opinion. The ALJ’s findings regarding credibility and Dr. Bartell’s 

opinion may change once the record is further developed on remand regarding Exhibits 13E and 

15E. On remand, the ALJ will have the opportunity to reassess the credibility of Plaintiff and 

D.S. and the weight given to Dr. Bartell’s opinion in light of the further-developed record. 

Therefore, the Court declines to further address these arguments at this time. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 12 of 13
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

13

V.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is 

GRANTED IN PART;

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

3. This action is remanded back to the Commissioner for further administrative 

proceedings consistent with this opinion; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00564-SAB Document 16 Filed 03/22/17 Page 13 of 13