Court Opinion

ID: 9817270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:11:44.529181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:53.687763
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM *
*860Pugh appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Pugh’s application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We review the district court’s summary judgment de novo. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005).
Pugh argues that the district court erred in failing to review de novo the final ALJ decision and in failing to address all of the issues raised by Pugh.
In its 2004 opinion, the district judge remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security to correct two errors: the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) “did not set forth specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Filgas” and the ALJ did not develop the record in that the ALJ should have secured any recent records not before the ALJ. The court directed that these deficiencies can be corrected by a remand. The remand to the Commissioner allowed “further proceedings consistent with this order” which meant proceedings leading to a statement of rejection reasons and any recent records.
The ALJ’s 2005 order on remand identifies the reasons for rejection, which the district court accepted, and states that “[u]pdated medical evidence was received and added to the record” and discusses that evidence. The procedural errors having been corrected, the district court entered judgment for the Commissioner.
The district judge acknowledged that the ALJ went further than the court’s directions specified in the remand, but held any error would be harmless. We agree.
AFFIRMED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.