N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LAW R ENC E B ENNETT,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, C om

m issione r Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-35754 D.C . No. 1:15-C V-03065-M KD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington M ary K. Dim ke , Unite d State s M a g istra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 23, 2018 ** B e fore : FARR IS, C ANB Y a nd LEAVY, C irc uit Judge s. Lawre nc e B e nne tt a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt re v e rsing a nd
re m anding for furthe r proc e e dings, ra the r tha n im m e diat e pa

ym e nt of be ne fits, the de c ision of theC om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity de ny ing his a

pplic a tion for 

# FIL ED MAR 26 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).disa

bility insura nc e be n e fits unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w for a b use of disc re tion the distric t
c ourt’ s de c ision to re m and for furthe r proc e e dings ra the r tha n im m e diate pa

ym e nt of be ne fits. Se e Harman v . Apfe l , 211 F.3d 1172, 1173 (9th C ir. 2000). W e re ve rse an d re m and for im m e diate pa

ym e nt of be ne fits be c a

use the thre e prongs of the c re dit-a s-true rule are satisfie d a nd the re c o rd doe s not ra ise an y se rious doubt that B e nne tt is disa

b l e d. Unde r the c re dit-a s-true rule , whe re (1) the re c ord ha s be e n fully de ve lope d
and furthe r a dm i nistra

tive proc e e dings would se rve no use ful purpose ; (2) the ALJ ha s fa ile d to providele ga lly suffic ie nt re a sons for re j e c ting e vide nc e , whe the r c la im ant te stim ony

or m e dic a l opinion; a

nd (3) if the im

prope rly disc re dite d
e vide nc e we re c re dite d a s true , the ALJ would bere quire d to find thec la i m ant disa ble d on re m and, we re m and for a n award of be ne fits. Re v e ls v
. Be rry hill , 874 F.3d 648, 668 (9th C ir. 2017). Eve n whe re the thre e prongs ha v e be e n sa

tisfie d, this C ourt will not re m and for im m e diate pa

ym e nt of be n e fits if “ the re c ord a s a whole c re a te s se rious doubt tha t a c la im ant is, in fa c t, disa

ble d.” Garrison v
. C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1021 (9th C ir. 2014). He re , the first prong of the c re dit-a s -true rule is sa

tisfie d be c a

use the re c ord is fully de ve l o pe d a

n d the re is no indic a tion tha t furthe r proc e e dings would se rve a
2use ful purpose . This distric t c o urt re m ande d this c a se to the a ge nc y for furthe r proc e e dings onc e be fore , a n d thre e a dm i nistra

tive he a rings ha ve be e n he ld. The
re c o rd c onta ins a

m ple te stim ony

from B e n ne tt a

nd se ve ra l opinions from

B e nne tt’ s tre a ting phy sic i a

ns, a s we ll a s te stim ony

from two non-e xam ining m e dic a l e xpe rts, Drs. Ashe r and De B o lt. In re m anding for furthe r proc e e dings onc e a ga in, the distric t c o urt did not e xpre ss a ny ne e d for the ALJ to de ve lop the re c ord, re solve
c onflic ts or a

m biguitie s , or c onside r a dditiona l e v ide nc e . Although the C om m issione r a s se rts tha

t furthe r proc e e dings a

re ne c e s sa

ry to a ddre ss c o nflic ting
and a m biguous e vide nc e c onc e rning B e nne tt’ s disa bility onse t date , the C om m issione r’ s a sse rtion is unc onvinc ing be c a use the e vide n c e to whic h the C om m issione r c i te s is not c o n flic ting or a m biguous, or the

ALJ a lre a dy

a ddre sse d it a nd the C om

m issione r fa ils to ide ntify any be ne fit in a llowing the

ALJ to re visit it on re m and. S

e e Garrison , 759 F.3d a

t 1021 (holding tha

t the distric t

c o urt
a buse d its disc re tion in re m a

nding for furthe r proc e e dings ra the r tha n im m e diate pa ym e nt of be ne fits be c a

use re m and to a llow ALJ a “ m ulliga n” doe s not qua lify

a s a “ use ful purpose ” unde r first prong of c re dit-a s -true rule ). The se c ond prong of the c re dit-a s-true rule is sa tisfie d be c a use , a s the distric t
c ourt c orre c tly

de te rm ine d, the ALJ fa ile d to a rtic ulat e spe c ific , c le ar, and
c onvinc i ng re a sons for disc ounting B e nne tt’ s te stim o n y and im prope rly re

je c te d or
3ignore d te stim o ny from Drs. Ashe r and De B olt a nd the opinions of B e nne tt’ s tre a ting phy sic i a

ns, inc luding Drs. Dube k a nd C a la y an. The third prong of the

c re dit-a s-true rule is sa

tisfie d be c a use the ALJ would have to find B e nne tt disa

ble d on re m and if B e nne tt’ s te stim ony , Dr. Ashe r’ s te stim ony , Dr. De B olt’ s te stim ony , or the opinions of Drs. Dube k or C a la y an we re c re d ite d a s true , give n tha t e a c h indic a te s tha

t B e nne tt wa s disa

ble d during the
re le va nt pe riod from

M arc h 1, 1997, through June 30, 2002. Fina lly , the re c ord doe s not ra ise any se rious doubt tha

t B e nne tt wa s disa ble d during there le va

nt pe riod, a

nd the C om

m issione r fa ils to offe r any pe rsua sive argum e nt to thec ontra ry . Se e id. a t 1022-23. B e c a use the thre e prongs of the c re dit-a s-true rule are satisfie d a nd the
re c o rd doe s not ra i s e any

se rious doubt tha

t B e nne tt wa s disa

ble d during the
re le va nt pe riod, the distric t c ourt e rre d by not re m anding this c a se for im m e diate pa ym e nt of be ne fits. Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s orde r with instruc tions to re m and this c a se to the a ge nc y for im m e d iate pa

ym e nt of be ne fits. Se e id . a t 1023. 1 RE V E RSE D in par t and RE M ANDE D.

1 B e nne tt’ s a

rgum e nts to thedistric t c ourt suffic e d to ra ise the que stion whe the r re m and should dire c t the c re d iting of fa

vora b le te s tim ony and a

n award of be ne fits. The re wa s no wa ive r of this issue
. 4