DeAnda v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jose Benigno DeAnda, II, No. CV-23-01760-PHX-JJT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

15 At issue is the denial of Plaintiff Jose Benigno DeAnda’s Application for Disability Insurance Benefits by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) under the Social Security Act (“the Act”). After the SSA filed the Administrative Record (Docs. 6–7, “R.”) and Plaintiff filed his Opening Brief (Doc. 9), Defendant Commissioner of SSA filed a Motion to Remand (Doc. 11, Mot.), to which Plaintiff replied (Doc. 14, Reply).

20 In the Motion, Defendant concedes that, in the decision denying Plaintiff’s request for disability benefits (R. at 15–32), the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) provided an incomplete evaluation of consultive examiner Christine Joy, PA’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s handling limitations and did not fully reconcile PA Joy’s opinions with the opinions of Dr. Shin Yoon. (Mot. at 8–9.) Accordingly, Defendant moves the Court for remand of this case to the SSA for further proceedings. (Mot. at 8–9.) In Reply, Plaintiff asks the Court to find the ALJ erred in discounting the opinions of both PA Joy and Dr. Yoon. (Reply at 2.) Plaintiff argues that, if the opinions of both PA Joy and Dr. Yoon were credited, further administrative proceedings would be unnecessary to determine 1|| Plaintiff is disabled under the Act, and the Court should thus remand this matter for a 2|| calculation and payment of benefits.

3 Generally, the ordinary remand rule—providing that a case should be remanded for 4|| further proceedings—applies in Social Security cases, and the Court will only remand for || calculation and payment of benefits when, after finding the ALJ erred in evaluating the || evidence, the Court finds the record is fully developed, there are not outstanding issues that 7\| must be resolved, and the Court is left with no uncertainty that the claimant is disabled.

8 || Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099-1102 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, 9|| the Court agrees with Defendant that the ALJ did not provide a full evaluation of PA Joy’s || opinions regarding Plaintiffs handling limitations or reconcile PA Joy’s opinions regarding Plaintiff's ability to manipulate or reach with Dr. Yoon’s opinions regarding the || same. (Mot. at 5—9.) By its very nature, this error reveals outstanding issues that must be 13} resolved by the ALJ, precluding remand for a calculation and payment of benefits.

Accordingly, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 11) and remanding this case to the Social || Security Administration for further proceedings.

18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment || consistent with this Order and close this case.

20 Dated this 20th day of September, 2024. CN 21 “wok: Unig State@District Judge _2-