Mya Fallon v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 14 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MYA NOELIA FALLON,                              No.    20-16884
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04704-MTL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
    Commissioner of Social Security,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
    Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 18, 2021**
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Before: GILMAN,*** CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
    Mya Noelia Fallon appeals the decision of the district court that reversed the
    Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Supplemental
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for
    the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    Security Income Benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act because she is
    dissatisfied with the extent of the relief granted to her. She contends that the court
    should have remanded her case to the agency for an immediate award of benefits rather
    than for further proceedings. We review the court’s decision under the abuse of
    discretion standard. Leon v. Berryhill, 
    880 F.3d 1041
    , 1045 (9th Cir. 2017). For the
    following reasons, we AFFIRM.
    1.     The district court concluded that the administrative law judge (ALJ)
    committed reversible error by (a) discounting the medical opinions of two examining
    doctors, Dr. Catherine O’Connell (a neuropsychologist) and Dr. Michael Rabara
    (a psychologist); (b) rejecting Fallon’s symptom testimony; and (c) discounting third-
    party function reports submitted by Fallon’s stepmother, father, and sister. Even after
    accounting for those errors, the court concluded that factual gaps and inconsistencies
    remained in the record that the ALJ should resolve.
    2.     The Commissioner does not contest the district court’s decision to
    remand the case for further consideration by the ALJ. This leaves, as the sole issue
    on appeal, Fallon’s contention that the court abused its discretion by not going further
    to order that she be immediately awarded benefits.
    3.     A district court evaluates whether to remand a case for further
    proceedings or for an immediate award of benefits under what is referred to as the
    “credit-as-true rule.” Under that rule, the court asks (a) whether the “ALJ has failed
    2
    to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, whether claimant
    testimony or medical opinion,” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    775 F.3d 1090
    , 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); and (b) “whether the record has
    been fully developed, whether there are outstanding issues that must be resolved
    before a determination of disability can be made, and whether further administrative
    proceedings would be useful,” 
    id. at 1101
     (citations and internal quotation marks
    omitted). If no outstanding issues remain and further proceedings would not be
    useful, only then does the court have discretion to find the “relevant testimony
    credible as a matter of law.” 
    Id.
     (citations omitted).
    4.     Fallon argues that the district court should have found that
    Dr. O’Connell’s and Dr. Rabara’s opinions were uncontradicted by other medical
    opinions in the record, that Fallon’s symptom testimony should be credited as true,
    and that Fallon’s family members’ third-party function reports should also be credited
    as true, and should have thus remanded the case for an immediate award of benefits.
    But the district court did not err when it remanded the case for further proceedings
    because of the factual gaps and inconsistencies identified in the court’s opinion. The
    court therefore had no reason to reach the third step of the credit-as-true rule and
    decide whether to find some or all of the testimony credible as a matter of law.
    5.     Fallon’s reliance on Trevizo v. Berryhill, 
    871 F.3d 664
     (9th Cir. 2017),
    does not persuade us otherwise because there were no inconsistencies or gaps in
    3
    Trevizo’s record comparable to those in the present case. The immediate award of
    benefits by this court, as in Trevizo, is a “rare circumstance[],” see Treichler, 775
    F.3d at 1101 (citation omitted), which further supports our conclusion that the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the case for further
    proceedings by the ALJ.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-16884

Filed Date: 12/14/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/14/2021