Case Name: Jennifer L. CHRISTOPHERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-12
Citations: 593 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 12-17219
Parties: Jennifer L. CHRISTOPHERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
Jennifer L. CHRISTOPHERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-17219.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 6, 2015.
Filed Feb. 12, 2015.
Mark Ross Caldwell, Caldwell & Ober LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jessica Milano, Assistant Regional Counsel, Allan D. Berger, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration General Counsel’s Office, Region VIII, Denver, CO, Michael A. Johns, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Jennifer J. Christopherson (Christopherson) appeals the district court's remand to the Administrative Law Judge of her social security disability benefits application for further proceedings rather than an immediate award of benefits. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, see Treichler v. Comm'r of Social Security Admin., No. 12-85944, 775 F.3d 1090, 1097-98, 2014 WL 7332774, at *5 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2014), we affirm.
Because there are unanswered questions about the extent of Christopherson's impairment, and divergent opinions on Chris-topherson's ability to work, the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the case for further proceedings. See id. at 1105, 2014 WL 7332774 at *11 (articulating that a case involving unresolved factual conflicts and ambiguities should be remanded for further proceedings).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01005-JAT except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.