April Dominguez v. Carolyn Colvin
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21555
9th Cir.2015Background
- April Dominguez filed multiple Title XVI disability claims; this appeal concerns denial of her second application (filed June 15, 2009) claiming multiple impairments including carpal tunnel, obesity, gastroparesis, panic disorder with agoraphobia, back pain, and dementia.
- The ALJ found carpal tunnel and obesity severe, assessed an RFC for a reduced range of light work with only occasional handling/fingering, and denied benefits at step five based on vocational expert testimony.
- The ALJ discounted treating physician Dr. Rajesh Bhakta’s functional opinions as "inconsistent with the overall medical evidence" but gave substantial weight to one examining physician and some weight to another.
- The government conceded the ALJ erred by rejecting Dr. Bhakta’s opinions without specific and legitimate reasons; the district court remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings rather than awarding benefits.
- Dominguez appealed the remand-without-benefits order, arguing the district court abused its discretion by not remanding with instructions to award benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by remanding for further proceedings instead of awarding benefits | Dominguez: ALJ legally erred in rejecting treating physician; record proves disability so district court should credit treating opinion and award benefits | Gov: Although ALJ erred, the record contains conflicts, inconsistencies, and unresolved issues requiring further factfinding; remand for further proceedings appropriate | Court: No abuse of discretion; remand for further proceedings affirmed because record is not fully developed and factual issues remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (contradicted treating opinions may be rejected only for specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence)
- Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (district courts usually should remand to agency; explains crediting-as-true framework and requirement to resolve outstanding issues first)
- Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court discretion in remand remedies; sets standards when benefits may be awarded)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (discusses when improperly discredited evidence should be credited and when benefits may be awarded)
- Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing court retains discretion to remand for further proceedings despite ALJ error)
- Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (discusses remedies following administrative error)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S. 1985) (general principle that remand to agency is proper course except in rare circumstances)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (burden at step five to show jobs exist in significant numbers)
- Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1989) (discusses Step Five burden and vocational evidence)
- Luna v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2010) (remand appropriate when onset date requires further administrative development)