Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02222/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Mark A. Rasmussen
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. RASMUSSEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2222 GGH

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social 

Security,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Presently before this court is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and

defendant’s motion for remand. Having reviewed the parties’ filings, the court now issues the

following order.

The defendant’s request for remand is brought on four grounds: to “1) further

evaluate the medical evidence of record, including the findings of the Veteran’s Administration;

2) further evaluate Plaintiff’s mental impairment; 3) assess the material lay witness statements of

record; and 4) obtaining additional evidence from a vocational expert to assess the impact of

Plaintiff’s impairments on his ability to work, and to assess any conflicts between the VE

testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.”

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-02222-GGH Document 22 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 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

 To the extent that plaintiff’s counsel contends certain reports are missing from the record, 1

on remand he can ensure that these reports will be properly before the agency for consideration.

2

A review of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and reply indicates that remand

is required not only for the issues enumerated by defendant, but also to consider other matters

raised by plaintiff, such as an evaluation of plaintiff’s credibility, reports which plaintiff claims

were not included in the record, and the ALJ’s analysis of plaintiff’s treating physicians. It only 1

stands to reason that if the items on defendant’s list are properly reconsidered, such

reconsideration may well impact findings in the areas of plaintiff’s credibility, the weight to give

treating physicians and the like. The court does not determine whether specific errors occurred

on the record presented, but determines that remand is required for a completely new

determination at all steps of the sequential analysis. 

If additional administrative proceedings would remedy the defects in the decision,

remand is appropriate. Salvador v. Sullivan, 917 F.2d 13, 15 (9th Cir. 1990); Barbato v.

Commissioner of Social Security Admin., 923 F. Supp. 1273, 1277-78 (C.D.Cal. 1996). The

court concludes, as did Barbato, that this case should be remanded for further administrative

proceedings to enable the ALJ to obtain a more complete record, and to avoid the possibility of

an inequitable result. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and

denied in part without prejudice, the Commissioner’s Motion for Remand is granted in part. This

matter is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for

further findings in accordance with this order. Judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff.

DATED: 12/18/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

rasmussen.rem

Case 2:06-cv-02222-GGH Document 22 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2