Alhawari v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the denial of plaintiff's application for disability benefits. It granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner's cross-motion, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted.“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (ECF 13) is GRANTED” | agree with court The court found that the ALJ failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting the plaintiff's testimony, citing binding Ninth Circuit precedent. This constitutes a legal error requiring remand. |
Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied.“the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF 15) is DENIED” | agree with court The denial follows logically from the finding that the ALJ's decision was legally insufficient due to the lack of proper explanation for discounting testimony. |
Case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.“the case remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” | agree with court Remand is the standard remedy when an ALJ fails to meet the legal burden of explaining credibility determinations. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the specific, clear, and convincing standard required by the Ninth Circuit for discounting claimant testimony. It cites the appropriate binding authorities and reaches a defensible result based on the ALJ's failure to meet this burden.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 |} MOHAMAD A., Case No.: 22-cv-00504-AGS 5 Plainift,) ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR 6 || SUMMARY JUDGMENT 7 Kilolo KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of (ECF Nos. 13 & 15) Social Security, Defendant. 10 11 On February 1, 2023, the Court heard argument on plaintiff's appeal of his denial of 12 || disability benefits. For the reasons set out on the record, the Court finds that the 13 || Administrative Law Judge failed to give “‘specific, clear and convincing reasons’” for 14 || discounting plaintiff's testimony. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) 15 (quoting Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009)); see also Brown-Hunter v. 16 || Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir. 2015) (rejecting an ALJ adverse-credibility 17 ||determination when she merely listed medical evidence that purportedly supported her 18 || conclusion without explanation). 19 Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (ECF 13) is GRANTED, the 20 Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF 15) is DENIED, and the case 21 remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with 22 || this opinion. The Clerk is directed to issue a judgment and to close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: February 2, 2023 25 — | 4 6 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 27 28