NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAROLD NEWTON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

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

- Appellee. No. 18

- 16651 D.C. No. 3:17

- cv - 08247

- DGC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 5, 2021 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and CLIFTON , Circuit Judges. Dissent by Judge CLIFTON Harold Newton appeals the district court’s judgment vacating the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social

* This disp osition 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

MAR 9 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Security Act and remanding to the agency for further proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. W e review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to remand for further proceedings

. Leon v. Berryhill , 880 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2017)

. We reverse and remand with instructions to remand to the ALJ for the calculation and award of benefits. Here, the district court held that the ALJ erred by discounting the opinion of Claimant’s treating doctor, the opinion of his examining doctor, and Claimant’s own testimony concerning the extent of his symptoms. Additional medical evidence also supports the claim of disability. In deciding the scope of the remand, the district court reasoned that there were conflicting medical opinions in the record, but they came from non - examining doctors and a consultative examiner who saw Claimant only once, about two years before the date of the hearing and before much of the erroneously discounted medical evidence was developed. The most closely analogous precedent is Trevizo v. Ber ryhill , 871 F.3d 664, 683 ( 9th Cir. 2017). There, the ALJ erroneously disregarded the treating physician’s opinion, while accepting the contrary opinion of an examining physician, and erroneously rejected the claimant’s pain testimony . The claimant had fi rst sought benefits seven years before we issued our opinion. We remanded for an award of benefits. Id. Here, the ALJ’s errors are similar, the record is complete, no legally sufficient evidence casts doubt on Claimant’s disability, and3

Claimant first s ought benefits seven years ago. Even though the claimant in Trevizo was older than Claimant is (age 65 there, versus age 46 at the time of the hearing in this case), a younger age alone does not preclude an award of benefits. See Smolen v. Chater , 80 F.3 d 1273 , 1278, 1292 (9 th Cir. 1996) (remanding for an award of benefits for a claimant who was in her 30s and who had waited seven years for a disability determination). REVERSED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.No. 18-16651, N e w t o n v . Saul C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. I c a nnot c o nc lude tha t the distric t a

buse d its disc re tion by re m a nding for furthe r a d m inistra t ive proc e e dings ra

the r tha n for a n im m e dia te

a wa rd of be ne fits. Se e Harman v . Apfe l , 211 F.3d 1172, 1177–78 (9th C ir. 2000) (e xpla ining tha

t the a uthority to m odify

a de c ision without re

m a nd for furthe r proc e e dings wa s “ inte nde d to be disc re tiona ry .” ). “ C ongre ss e ntruste d the C om m issione r with the powe r a nd a uthority to

e na c t rule s a

n d re gula tions tha t gove rn the disa

bility de t e rm ina tion,” a nd, in
pa rtic u la r, to “ m a ke findings of fa c t, a nd de c isions a s to the rights of a ny individua l a

pply ing for a

pa y m e nt unde r the Ac t.” Tre ic hle r v . C ommissione r of Soc ial Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th C ir. 2014) (c iting 42 U.S.C . §§ 405, 421, 423) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d ). “ For highly fa c t -inte nsive individua liz e d

de te rm ina tions like

a c la im a n t's e ntitle m e nt to disa

b ility be ne fits, C ongre ss ‘ pla c e s a

pre m ium upon a ge nc y

e xpe rtise , a

nd, for the sa

ke of uniform i ty , it is usua lly

be tte r to m inim iz e the opportunity for re vie wing c ourts to substitute the ir disc re tion for tha

t of the a ge nc y .’ ” Tre ic hle r , 775 F.3d a t 1098 (quoting C

onsolo v . Fe d. Mar. C

omm’n , 383 U.S. 607, 621 (1996)). The ALJ, not the c ourt, is re sponsible for de t e rm ining c re dibility , re solving c onflic t s in
te stim ony a nd m e d i c a l opinions, a

n d we ighing e vide nc e . 

# FIL ED

MAR 9 2021
M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSIf a

re v ie wing c ourt de te rm ine s tha t the C om m issione r e rre d in som e re spe c t

a nd the e rror is not ha

rm le ss, “ the prope r c ourse , e xc e pt in ra re c irc um sta

nc e s, is to

re m a nd to the a g e nc y for a dditiona l inve stiga t ion or e xpla

na tion.” Id . a t 1099 (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks a nd c ita tions om itte d). “ An a

utom a t ic a wa rd of be ne fits in a disa bility be ne fits c a se is a

ra re a nd prophy la c tic e xc e ption to the

we ll-e sta blishe d ordina

ry re m a nd rule , ” Le on v
. Be rry hill , 880 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th C ir. 2017), a

p plic a ble only “ whe re no use ful purpose would be se rve d by furthe r a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings a

nd the re c o rd ha s be e n thoroughly de ve lope d.” Hill v . Astrue , 698 F.3d 1153, 1162 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks

om i tte d). The distric t c ourt c o nc l ude d tha t furthe r a d

m inistra t ive proc e e dings would be use ful be c a

use the re c ord c o nta ine d

c onflic ting m e dic a l opinions a nd re fle c te d doubt a s to whe the r Ne wton wa s disa b le d. Se e Tre ic hle r , 775 F.3d a t 1101 (e xpla ining tha

t a d m inistra tive proc e e dings a

re ge ne ra lly

use ful whe n the re is a

ne e d to re solve c onflic ts a nd a m biguitie s in the re c ord a

nd noting tha

t “ [w] he re the re is c onflic ting e vide nc e , a nd not a ll e sse ntia l fa c tua l issue s ha ve be e n

re solve d, a

re m a nd for a

n a w a rd of be ne fits is ina

ppropria te .” ); Andre w

s v . Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 1995). Tha t wa s not a

n a buse of disc re tion. On

re m a nd the ALJ m ight ha ve disc ounte d the opinions of Drs. Ohm a n a nd Pa t e l for
2le ga lly

suffic ie nt re a sons a

nd a c c orde d m ore we i ght to the c o nflic ting opinions of the o the r m e d ic a l profe ssiona ls. Thomas v . Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ The opinions of non-tre a ting or non-e xa m ining phy sic i a ns m a y . . . se rve

a s substa n tia l e vide nc e whe n the opinions a re c onsiste nt with inde

pe nde nt c linic a l findings or othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord.” ) Ultim a te ly , the “ de c ision whe the r to

re m a nd for furthe r de ve lopm e nt of the a dm inistra t ive re c ord or to dire c t a

n im m e dia te a w a rd of be ne fits is a fa c t-bound de te rm ina tion,” whic h should be

a fforde d disc re tion. Harman , 211 F.3d a t 1177. I would a ffirm

.

3