Zubin Khavarian v. Andrew Saul ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZUBIN KHAVARIAN, No. 17-56351
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01251-JLS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 4, 2020**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Zubin Khavarian appeals the district court’s decision remanding his case to
the ALJ for further proceedings instead of for an immediate award of benefits, a
decision with which the Commissioner does not disagree. Khavarian applied for
*
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).
disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. An
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that Khavarian was not disabled and could
perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with the non-exertional
limitation of non-public simple repetitive tasks. The district court did not agree
with the ALJ. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to
remand for further proceedings, Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1173 (9th Cir.
2000), and we affirm.
The district court correctly exercised its discretion when it remanded for
further administrative proceedings because outstanding factual issues remain to be
resolved regarding (1) the extent of Khavarian’s functional limitations resulting
from his PTSD, (2) why his condition has not improved since 2012, and (3)
whether he would be able to sustain a forty-hour work week in a less demanding
job than his previous work in the Air Force. See Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d
403, 408-10 (9th Cir. 2015) (remanding for further proceedings rather than an
immediate award of benefits where outstanding factual issues remain unresolved).
The district court correctly considered this ambiguity to be relevant because the
record indicated that some state reviewing physicians had suggested that
Khavarian may be able to perform “less demanding” work than he did in the past.
AFFIRMED.
2