Case Name: Brenda S. MENDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 14-17323
Parties: Brenda S. MENDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 568–568

Head Matter:
Brenda S. MENDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-17323
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 15, 2016 San Francisco, California
Filed December 19, 2016
Eric G. Slepian, Esquire, Slepian Law Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Laura Hope Holland, SSA-Social Security Administration, Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Brenda S. Mendez appeals the decision of the district court remanding her Social Security disability insurance benefits claim for further proceedings before the administrative law judge ("ALJ") rather than for a determination of benefits.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding for further proceedings, because there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination of disability can me made. Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 590, 593 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the record presents "conflicting evidence, and not all essential factual issues have been resolved" by the ALJ, including (1) assessing Mendez's credibility, (2) weighing the opinions of medical providers, and (3) incorporating Mendez's residual functional capacity into the job descriptions presented by the vocational expert. See Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014). Therefore, remand for an award of benefits under the-- credit-as-true rule is inappropriate. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.