NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA L. HATFIELD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 16970
D.C. No. 2:18

- cv - 02842

- SPL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 1, 2021 * * Phoenix, Arizona Before: W. FLETCHER, MILLER, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Melissa Hatfield appeals from the district court’s order reversing an administrative law judge’s de nial of her application for disability insurance
benefits under Title II of the Social Security A ct an d remanding her case to the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The only issue on appeal is
whether the district court abused its discretion in remanding for further proceedings instead of directing payment of benefits

. See Harm a n v. Apfel , 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000) . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

w e affirm. Only in rare circumstances does a case merit a remand for an award of benefits instead of further proceedings. M oisa v. Barnhart , 367 F.3d 882, 886

– 87 (9th Cir. 2004). A remand for an award of benefits is appropriate only if t he record
is fully developed and there are no outstanding issues to resolve

. Treichler v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1 101 (9th Cir. 2014)

. Here, gaps and inconsistencies in the record exist, leaving some doubt as to whether
Hatfield is disable d under the terms of the Social Security Act. See Leon v. Berryhill , 880 F.3d 1041, 104 7

– 4 8 (9th Cir. 2017). T he district court therefore did not err in refusing to direct an award of benefits. The record is not fully developed as to whether Hatfield can type. Hatfield
testified that she could not perform a sedentary office job because her childhood epilepsy ha d created a disconnect between her eyes and her hands , preventing her from typing on a computer. But no evidence in the record beyond Hatfield’s testimony substantiate s her claim that she cann ot type. Because typing is an essential skill for many j obs in the national economy, additional evidence3

demonstrating that Hatfield cannot type may be critical to resolving this case.
T he record is also not fully developed as to Hatfield’s memory loss. At her hearing, Hatfield testified that she had recently developed “severe problems with memory,” but the only psychiatric evaluation of her memory in the record occurred
more than two years before the date of the hearing . While that evaluation found
that Hatfield had no problems with her memory , a more recent evaluation will further develop the record and may provide more accurate information about Hatfield’s memory

. There are also inconsistencies between Hatfield’s testimony and Dr.
Edelstein ’s opinion. Hatfield testified that she could sit for extended periods as long as she could reposition herself every 15 minutes. But Dr. Edelstein opined
that H atfield could sit for only 10 min utes at a time and a maximum of three hours in an eight

- hour workday. While “the pressures of a workplace environment” could
exacerbate Hatfield’s condition, Garrison v. Colvin , 759 F.3d 995, 1016 (9th Cir. 2014), it is not apparent from the existing recor d that workplace stresses can explain such an inconsistency, especially in light of Hatfield’s testimony that she
can driv e ( presumably seated) for 30 minutes if cruise control is on . These
inconsistencies leave open the question of whether Hatfield can si t through an eight

- hour workday. See Brown

- Hunter v. Colvin , 806 F.3d 487, 496 (9th Cir.
2015 )

.4

The vocational expert testified that , assuming Hatfield could not perform more than light work, she would not be able to find employment if her ailments rendered her incapable of typin g , cause d her to be off t ask for more than 10 percent of the workday , prevented her from sitting through a workday, or forced her to take more than four days off a month

. T he gaps and inconsistencies in the record are
relevant to a determination of the severity of Hatfield ’s medical condition. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that further proceedings were necessary
. See Dominguez v. Colvin , 808 F.3d 403, 410 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED

.