The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 Case No. 25-cv-00073-HSG
CHARLES MARAVILLA,
8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
Plaintiff, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
9 MOTION FOR SUMMARY
v. JUDGMENT AND DENYING
10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11
SSA COMMISSIONER, Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 20
12
Defendant.
13
14
Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, acting in his official
15
capacity, denied Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title XVI of the
16
Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 6, Administrative Record at 82, 96 (“AR”).1 Plaintiff seeks reversal
17
of that decision and remand for either award of benefits or further proceedings. Dkt. No. 18.
18
Defendant filed a cross-motion. Dkt. No. 20. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
19
PART Plaintiff’s motion and DENIES Defendant’s motion.
20
I. BACKGROUND
21
Plaintiff is a 50-year-old man who is currently homeless and resides in Alameda County.
22
AR at 40. Plaintiff was incarcerated from about 1996 to 2007, and reports experiencing
23
significant traumatic events throughout his life. AR at 43, 52–53. Plaintiff filed an application for
24
social security disability benefits on September 28, 2021, alleging disability beginning on his date
25
of birth, July 9, 1975. AR at 17. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s application, and upheld that
26
27
1 decision on reconsideration. AR at 82, 96.
2 Plaintiff appeared before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for a telephonic hearing on
3 September 22, 2023. AR at 32–70. In a brief filed with the ALJ prior to the hearing, Plaintiff
4 contended that he is disabled under the Social Security Act because he “has suffered from or
5 continues to suffer from Major Depressive Disorder,” “Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsive
6 Disorders,” “Personality and Impulse-Control Disorders,” and “Trauma and Stressor-Related
7 Disorders.” AR at 394. Plaintiff filed medical records pertaining to these asserted impairments
8 before the hearing. AR at 426–648. The ALJ provided Plaintiff with two additional weeks after
9 the hearing to supplement the administrative record with medical records from the Alameda
10 County Santa Rita Jail, which Plaintiff timely filed. AR at 649–828. Upon a review of the full
11 record, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is not disabled after following the five-step sequential
12 evaluation process mandated for disability claims under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. AR at 14–31.
13 Step One requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is working in “substantial
14 gainful activity.” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.971 et seq. “Substantial
15 work activity” is defined as “work activity that involves doing significant physical or mental
16 activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.972(a). And “gainful work activity,” in turn, is defined as “work
17 activity that you do for pay or profit.” Id. at § 416.972(b). At Step One, the ALJ determined that
18 Plaintiff had not been engaged in “substantial gainful activity” since the date of his initial
19 application in September 2021. AR at 19.
20 Step Two directs the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or
21 combination of impairments that significantly limit his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R.
22 § 416.920(c). Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff satisfied this step because his post-traumatic
23 stress disorder, substance-induced depressive disorder with psychotic features, and polysubstance
24 use disorder constituted severe impairments that significantly limited his ability to perform basic
25 work activities. AR at 19.
26 At Step Three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment, or combination of
27 impairments, medically “meets or equals” an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P,
1 bureaucratic mouthful means the ALJ must see if the claimant’s impairment matches the criteria
2 for disabling conditions listed in the regulations.” Petrini v. Colvin, No. 14-CV-01583-JD, 2015
3 WL 5071931, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015), aff’d sub nom. Petrini v. Berryhill, 705 F. App’x
4 511 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). At this step, the ALJ found against Plaintiff. AR at 20.
5 Considering Plaintiff’s impairments “singly and in combination,” the ALJ determined that they
6 did not meet or equal the criteria of any listing during the relevant period. Id.
7 The ALJ therefore proceeded to Step Four to determine Plaintiff’s “residual functional
8 capacity” (or “RFC”) to perform work. Id. at 21–25. To determine a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ
9 must first consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental
10 impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms.
11 See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929; see also Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p. The ALJ must consider
12 all impairments, even those that are not severe. See id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.945. Once the
13 underlying impairment has been shown, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity, persistence and
14 limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the
15 claimant’s work-related activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929.
16 The ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s RFC and whether it enabled him to work. In making this
17 determination, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s testimony concerning the severity of his symptoms,
18 finding that they were “not entirely consistent with the medical record and other evidence in the
19 record, or more precisely, the general lack thereof.” AR at 22. The ALJ also considered the
20 medical opinions of two doctors: Dr. Jacklyn Chandler and Dr. Laura Catlin. The ALJ found Dr.
21 Chandler’s opinion mostly persuasive, and found that Dr. Catlin’s opinion, which was based on a
22 one-time telephonic examination, was not persuasive and inconsistent with Plaintiff’s lack of
23 mental health treatment during the relevant period. AR at 24. Because Plaintiff did not have any
24 past relevant work experience within the last 15 years, the ALJ proceeded to the fifth and last step.
25 At the last step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is able to do any other work
26 given his RFC, age, education, and work experience. Based on these factors and the testimony of
27 a vocational expert who appeared at the hearing, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is capable of finding
1 concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled under the Act. Id.
2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
3 The Court has jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Commissioner. See 42 U.S.C.
4 § 405(g) (“The [district] court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the
5 record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social
6 Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.”). The Court may disturb the
7 Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits only if the decision is not supported by substantial
8 evidence or is based on legal error. Luther v. Berryhill, 891 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2018). The
9 threshold for “substantial evidence” is not high: “It means—and means only—such relevant
10 evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v.
11 Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (quotation omitted). “The evidence must be more than a
12 mere scintilla, but may be less than a preponderance.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110–11
13 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). “Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational
14 interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be
15 upheld.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002).
16 The Court must consider the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence
17 that supports and the evidence that detracts from the ALJ’s conclusion. McAllister v. Sullivan,
18 888 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). The ALJ is responsible for making determinations of
19 credibility and for resolving evidentiary ambiguities, including conflicting medical testimony.
20 Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). Additionally, the Court “may not
21 reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error that is harmless. The burden of showing that an
22 error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s determination.” Molina, 674
23 F.3d at 1111 (quotation omitted).
24 III. DISCUSSION
25 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in denying his claim for disability benefits. First,
26 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to provide “clear and convincing” reasons for discounting
27 his testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms. Mot. at 7–10. Second, Plaintiff argues that
1 Id. at 10–13. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ’s paragraph C criteria findings are not
2 supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 13–14.
3 A. Plaintiff’s Subjective Statements
4 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by failing to provide specific, clear and convincing
5 reasons for discounting his subjective statements about his condition. The Court agrees that the
6 ALJ committed legal error by not specifying what part of Plaintiff’s subjective testimony she
7 found not credible and explaining the basis for that conclusion, and remands on this limited issue.
8 Where, as here, an ALJ determines that a claimant “is not malingering and has provided
9 objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which might reasonably produce the pain
10 or other symptoms []he alleges, the ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of
11 those symptoms only by providing specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so.” Brown-
12 Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488–89 (9th Cir. 2015). The Ninth Circuit in Brown-Hunter
13 stated:
14 We hold that an ALJ does not provide specific, clear, and convincing
reasons for rejecting a claimant’s testimony by simply reciting the
15 medical evidence in support of his or her residual functional capacity
determination. To ensure that our review of the ALJ’s credibility
16 determination is meaningful, and that the claimant’s testimony is not
rejected arbitrarily, we require the ALJ to specify which testimony
17 she finds not credible, and then provide clear and convincing reasons,
supported by evidence in the record, to support that credibility
18 determination.
19 Id. at 489. Thus, to satisfy the “clear and convincing reasons” requirement, “[g]eneral findings are
20 insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence
21 undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Id. at 493 (quoting Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722
22 (9th Cir. 1998)). Failure to identify the testimony found not credible is legal error. Id. at 494.
23 The question is not whether this Court writing on a blank slate necessarily would reach the same
24 conclusion as the ALJ, but instead whether the ALJ’s rationale is clear enough that it has “the
25 power to convince.” Smartt, 53 F.4th at 499. Ultimately, the clear and convincing standard
26 requires an ALJ to “show his work.” Id.
27 Here, the ALJ summarily stated in what appears to be boilerplate language that “the
1 are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the
2 reasons explained in this decision.” AR at 22. The ALJ proceeded to summarize medical
3 evidence in the administrative record that formed the basis of the RFC finding. Id. at 22–24.
4 After finding that Plaintiff has a RFC that allows him to work, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff’s
5 “statements about the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms” are “inconsistent
6 with the medical evidence, or more precisely, the general lack thereof.” Id. at 25.
7 The ALJ’s approach here mirrors the one rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Lambert v. Saul,
8 980 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2020). There, the ALJ determined that the plaintiff’s testimony was “less
9 than fully consistent with the evidence because, among other reasons, the plaintiff had “not
10 generally received the type of medical treatment one would expect,” and because the “record
11 reflect[ed] significant gaps in [her] history of treatment and relatively infrequent trips to the doctor
12 for the allegedly disabling symptoms.” Id. at 1270. The ALJ provided a “relatively detailed
13 overview of [the claimant’s] medical history,” but the Ninth Circuit found that “providing a
14 summary of medical evidence is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for
15 finding the claimant’s symptom testimony not credible.” Id. at 1278 (quoting Brown-Hunter, 806
16 F.3d at 494). Similarly here, the ALJ made generalized statements regarding Plaintiff’s symptom
17 testimony, summarized the medical record, and then concluded that Plaintiff’s symptom testimony
18 was not consistent with the medical records, in particular the absence of evidence of mental health
19 treatment, without explaining why. AR at 22–25.
20 The Ninth Circuit has held that “the ALJ cannot rely on an absence of positive medical
21 evidence to discredit a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony.” Ferguson v. O’Malley, 95
22 F.4th 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 2024). But that is what the ALJ expressly did here. AR at 25; see also
23 LaRoque v. O’Malley, No. 22-35975, 2024 WL 3355363, at *3 (9th Cir. July 10, 2024) (finding
24 the ALJ committed legal error where she relied on the absence of medical treatment as
25 undermining claimant’s subjective symptom testimony). Although “an unexplained, or
26 inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment . . . can cast doubt on the sincerity of [a]
27 claimant’s pain testimony,” the Ninth Circuit has “proscribed the rejection of a claimant’s
1 Regennitter v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1999).
2 Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has questioned the “practice [of] chastis[ing] one with a mental
3 impairment for the exercise of poor judgment in seeking rehabilitation.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100
4 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotations omitted). The ALJ did not consider the evidence
5 suggesting the likelihood that Plaintiff did not seek treatment in significant part due to his
6 financial circumstances and the limitations stemming from his mental illness itself. See LaRoque,
7 2024 WL 3355363, at *3. (ALJ erred where she discounted symptom testimony due to claimant’s
8 failure to seek care, without considering his “homelessness and poor financial situation and the
9 resultant limitation on his ability to seek medical care”). Here, as in LaRoque, it is undisputed that
10 Plaintiff is homeless and experiences significant financial instability.
11 Defendant argues that the “ALJ reasonably concluded that if Plaintiff’s impairments were
12 as limiting as he claimed, he would have sought some form of specialized mental health
13 treatment.” Dkt. No. 20 (“Opp.”) at 3.2 But the ALJ “did not specifically identify any . . .
14 inconsistencies; she simply stated her non-credibility conclusion and then summarized the medical
15 evidence supporting her RFC determination,” then reiterated her conclusion. Brown-Hunter, 806
16 F.3d at 494. Courts in this district have found the conclusory language used by the ALJ here
17 insufficient. See, e.g., Chappell v. Saul, No. 4:20-CV-05642 YGR, 2021 WL 3493749, at *7
18 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021) (finding the same language insufficient and remanding). Additionally,
19 the Court may not now itself fill in the supposed inconsistencies. See Lambert, 980 F.3d at 1278
20 (district court erred in “attempt[ing] to fill in the ALJ’s reasoning”). The Court may not take “an
21 unspecified conflict” and “comb the administrative record to find specific conflicts.” Burrell v.
22 Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2014). It is the ALJ’s responsibility to “specify which
23 testimony she finds not credible, and then provide clear and convincing reasons” for rejecting it.
24 Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 489.
25
2 As Plaintiff points out, Defendant also inaccurately states that Plaintiff never sought treatment
26
for his allegedly disabling impairments during the relevant period. Opp. at 2. While the record
might not reflect “specialized mental health treatment,” it does show that Plaintiff sought
27
treatment at the Tiburcio Valley Health Center, where he was prescribed an anti-depressant after
1 The Court cannot find the ALJ’s error harmless. Where the “ALJ found generally that the
2 claimant’s testimony was not credible, but failed to identify which testimony she found not
3 credible and why,” the ALJ’s error was “not harmless because it precludes [courts] from
4 conducting a meaningful review of the ALJ’s reasoning.” Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 489. Here,
5 the ALJ failed to specify the basis for her rejection of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony, which
6 precludes meaningful review of her decision. This alone is sufficient to find under Brown-Hunter
7 that the ALJ’s error was not harmless. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown
8 that the ALJ erred in rejecting his symptom testimony without providing clear and convincing
9 reasons for doing so, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to this issue.
10 B. Opinion of Dr. Catlin
11 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly discredited the opinion Dr. Catlin. Mot. at 10–13.
12 The Court finds that the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Catlin’s opinion is supported by substantial
13 evidence.
14 For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, like the one here, an ALJ will no longer “defer
15 or give any specific evidentiary weight . . . to any medical opinion(s)” including those from
16 treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a); see Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of
17 Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844, 5867–68 (Jan. 18, 2017). The Ninth Circuit has confirmed
18 that these changes to the SSA’s regulations “displace our longstanding case law requiring an ALJ
19 to provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting an examining doctor’s opinion.” Woods v.
20 Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 787 (9th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). “For claims subject to the new
21 regulations, the former hierarchy of medical opinions—in which we assign presumptive weight
22 based on the extent of the doctor’s relationship with the claimant—no longer applies.” Id. Now,
23 an ALJ’s decision to discredit a medical opinion must simply be supported by substantial
24 evidence. Id.
25 In reviewing medical opinions, an ALJ must “articulate . . . how persuasive” it finds “all
26 of the medical opinions” based on several factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b). The ALJ must
27 address the two most important factors: supportability and consistency. Id. Supportability is “the
1 objective medical evidence.’” Woods, 32 F.4th at 791 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1)).
2 Consistency is “the extent to which a medical opinion is ‘consistent . . . with the evidence from
3 other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim.’” Id. at 792 (quoting 20 C.F.R.
4 § 404.1520c(c)(2)). An ALJ may, but is not required to, explain how other factors were
5 considered, including the source’s relationship with the claimant, the length and purpose of the
6 treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, and the source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R.
7 § 404.1520c(b)(2), (c).
8 Dr. Catlin assessed Plaintiff during a one-time telephonic appointment in June 2023. AR
9 at 637–48. She stated in her opinion that due to Plaintiff’s mental conditions, he would miss four
10 or more days of work on average per month, and that he would be off-task more than 20 percent of
11 the time during the workday. AR at 646. The ALJ found this opinion unpersuasive. AR at 24.
12 The Court finds that the ALJ did not commit reversible error in discounting Dr. Catlin’s medical
13 opinion. With respect to supportability, the ALJ found that Dr. Catlin’s assessment of Plaintiff’s
14 limitations was not supported by her own mental status examination findings, in which Dr. Catlin
15 noted that Plaintiff was largely within normal limits despite exhibiting symptoms of anxiety and
16 depression. AR at 640. As to consistency, the ALJ reasoned that Dr. Catlin’s opinion was
17 inconsistent with Plaintiff’s medical records, or more specifically, the “general lack of any mental
18 health treatment during the relevant period.” AR at 24. Plaintiff notes that the ALJ’s opinion
19 ignores his treatment at Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center (TVHC) in 2022 and 2023 and
20 assessment by Dr. Chandler. But the ALJ did consider these records, AR at 23, and observed that
21 the record reflected that Plaintiff had not sought specialized mental health treatment during the
22 relevant period.
23 While there could have been other reasonable approaches to evaluating Dr. Catlin’s
24 opinion, this Court must defer to the ALJ when “evidence is susceptible to more than one rational
25 interpretation.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 954. The ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Catlin’s opinion was not
26 reversible error. Luther, 891 F.3d at 875.3
27
1 C. Analysis of “Paragraph C” Criteria
2 Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding that his impairments did not meet or
3 equal a listing. Mot. at 13–14. The ALJ evaluated whether Plaintiff met listings 12.04
4 (Depressive, bipolar and related disorders) and 12.15 (Trauma-and stressor-related disorders). AR
5 at 20. Listings 12.04 and 12.15 have three paragraphs (A, B, and C), and a claimant’s mental
6 disorder must satisfy the requirements of paragraph A and either paragraph B or paragraph C. 20
7 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. § 12.00(A)(2). Plaintiff does not contest the ALJ’s analysis of
8 paragraphs A or B, but he argues that the ALJ’s findings as to the paragraph C criteria are not
9 supported by substantial evidence.
10 To satisfy the paragraph C criteria, a claimant’s mental disorder must be “‘serious and
11 persistent’; that is, there must be a medically documented history of the existence of the disorder
12 over a period of at least 2 years.” Id. § 12.00(A)(2)(c). Additionally, the disorder must also
13 satisfy both the C1 and C2 criteria. Id. § 12.00(G)(2)(a). The C1 criterion is satisfied with
14 evidence that a claimant relies, on an ongoing basis, on medical treatment, mental health therapy,
15 psychological support, or a highly structured setting to diminish signs and symptoms of the
16 disorder. Id. § 12.00(G)(2)(b). The C2 criterion is satisfied with evidence that, despite diminished
17 symptoms and signs, the claimant achieved only “marginal adjustment,” meaning the claimant has
18 minimal capacity to adapt to changes in his environment or to demands that are already part of
19 daily life. Id. § 12.00(G)(2)(c). Marginal adjustment exists “when the evidence shows that
20 changes or increased demands have led to exacerbation of [a claimant’s] symptoms and signs and
21 to deterioration in [his] functioning[.]” Id.
22 Here, after concluding that Plaintiff did not meet the criteria for paragraph B, the ALJ
23 stated:
24 In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the
“paragraph C” criteria because the claimant has only mild limitations
25 in his ability to adapt or manage himself. The objective evidence in
the record showed the claimant to have appropriate grooming, while
26
27
evaluated 32 areas of mental functioning, finding Plaintiff moderately limited in 19 of those areas
also being described as unkempt by the consultative examiner; and
1 generally, no problem getting along well with providers and staff
outside of his consultative examination. Moreover, mental status
2 examinations largely found the claimant to have normal mood and
affect. While the claimant endorsed auditory hallucinations, he failed
3 to show any signs of external stimuli during his healthcare
interactions (Exhibits 3F; 4F/7, 10, 17; 7F/4). These findings indicate
4 that the claimant’s ability to adapt is only mildly impaired and thus,
does not meet the criteria required under Paragraph C.
5
6 AR at 20–21.
7 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s reasoning is boilerplate and confuses paragraph B’s criteria
8 for adapting and managing oneself with paragraph C’s criteria for marginal adjustment. The Court
9 disagrees. The ALJ appropriately considered whether the Plaintiff is able to adapt to
10 environmental changes or demands in accordance with the C2 criterion, finding that he had only
11 “mild limitations” in his ability to do so. In other words, the ALJ determined that he was only
12 mildly limited in his ability to adapt, meaning that he has more than minimal capacity to adapt to
13 changes and did not satisfy the C2 criterion. Although the ALJ could have used more specific
14 language that tracked the C2 criterion in making her determination, the Court finds that the ALJ’s
15 analysis does not amount to reversible error. Luther, 891 F.3d at 875. Accordingly, the Court
16 DENIES the Plaintiff’s motion with respect to this issue.
17 D. Relief
18 Finally, Plaintiff argues that rather than remanding for further consideration, the Court
19 should remand for the immediate payment of benefits. The Social Security Act permits courts to
20 affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner’s decision “with or without remanding the case for a
21 rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1019 (9th Cir. 2014).
22 “[W]here the record has been developed fully and further administrative proceedings would serve
23 no useful purpose, the district court should remand for an immediate award of benefits.” Benecke
24 v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). But “[r]emand for further proceedings is
25 appropriate where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a disability
26 determination can be made, and it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to
27 find the claimant disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated.” Luther, 891 F.3d at 877–
] “only when the record clearly contradicted an ALJ’s conclusory findings and no substantial
2 || evidence within the record supported the reasons provided by the ALJ for denial of benefits.”
3 || Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir. 2017).
4 Here, the ALJ erred for the reasons discussed in this order, but it is not clear that the ALJ
5 || would be required to find Plaintiff disabled. Accordingly, remand for further proceedings is
6 appropriate.
7 IV. CONCLUSION
8 The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff's motion, Dkt. No. 18, and DENIES Defendant’s
9 || cross-motion, Dkt. No. 20. The Court REMANDS to the SSA for further proceedings consistent
10 || with this order. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close the case.
1] IT IS SO ORDERED.
a 12 Dated: 9/15/2026
Aleirl § Mb □□
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
14 United States District Judge
15
16
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28