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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gerardo Samaniego Martinez,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-04598-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

At issue are Plaintiff Gerardo Samaniego Martinez’s Opening Brief (Doc. 12), 

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) responsive brief 

requesting remand (Doc. 16), and Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 17). 

 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 May 13, 2016 (Doc. 12, R. at 19–31), and the Appeals Council upheld that 

decision on October 10, 2017 (R. at 1–4). After the ALJ rendered her decision, Plaintiff 

provided a letter to SSA from his former employer stating that he performed his prior work 

for only two months and that the employer terminated him “due to poor attendance,” and 

the Appeals Council made that letter part of the record. (R. at 5, 261–70.) 

After Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s decision to this Court and filed an Opening Brief 

(Doc. 12), Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 16) conceding that the ALJ made certain 

errors in reaching her decision and moving to remand for further development of the record 

and because the present record leaves doubt as to whether Plaintiff is disabled under the 
- 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 

Act. In his Reply (Doc. 17), Plaintiff argues that no outstanding issues remain and the Court 

should find Plaintiff disabled under the Act and remand for a calculation of benefits. 

 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. (Pl.’s 

Resp. to Mot. at 1.) 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 and agrees with Defendant that the record is not 

fully developed and that uncertainty remains as to whether Plaintiff is disabled under the 

Act. First, in her decision, the ALJ indicated she gave “great weight” to the findings of 

treating physician Dr. Szpaizman, but the ALJ did not incorporate into Plaintiff’s residual 

functional capacity (“RFC”) any limitation in the time he can continuously sit, even though 

Dr. Szpaizman stated Plaintiff could only sit for an hour at a time (R. at 892). Remand is 

necessary for the ALJ to determine the appropriate sitting limitation in Plaintiff’s RFC 

based on substantial evidence in the record. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, it is unclear 

if the ALJ will include the one-hour sitting limitation indicated on Dr. Szpaizman’s 

assessment or, considering all the evidence, something else. 
- 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 

 Second, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had past relevant work as a “printed 

circuit board layout taper” based on the record before her. (R. at 29.) Evidence Plaintiff 

produced after the ALJ issued her decision indicates Plaintiff worked as a taper for only 

two months, which is insufficient to qualify as past relevant work and conflicts with the 

evidence the ALJ considered. See Gatliff v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 172 F.3d 690, 

694 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting two months of past work is not past relevant work). The ALJ 

must make a new determination regarding whether Plaintiff had past relevant work and, if 

not, must proceed to step five of the disability analysis—a determination if there is other 

work in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform. Because the ALJ determined 

based on incomplete information that Plaintiff had past relevant work, she did not have the 

opportunity to conduct a step five analysis. 

 In sum, because of the uncertainties left by the inconsistencies and missing evidence 

in the record, uncertainty also remains as to whether Plaintiff is disabled under the Act. On 

remand, the ALJ must (1) reanalyze Plaintiff’s RFC, (2) consider Plaintiff’s new evidence 

and determine whether he performed any past relevant work, and, (3) if not, determine 

whether Plaintiff can perform other work in the national economy, taking additional 

vocational expert testimony if needed. 

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

development of the record and a disability determination. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED remanding this matter to the Social Security 

Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Specifically, the ALJ 

must (1) reanalyze Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, (2) consider Plaintiff’s new 

evidence and determine whether he performed any past relevant work, and, (3) if not, 

determine whether Plaintiff can perform other work in the national economy, taking 

additional vocational expert testimony if needed. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 
- 4 - 

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 

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

accordingly and close this case. 

 Dated this 25th day of March, 2019. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge