Fischer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, 6:15-cv-00707

Richard W. Fischer (born 1951) applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging dyslexia and lower back pain; onset amended to October 7, 2011 after stopping work.
Work history: construction laborer/equipment operator, janitor, and school bus driver; several jobs obtained and performed with special accommodations from family/friends.
Substantial record evidence shows severe literacy deficits/illiteracy (plaintiff testimony, family/supervisor letters, multiple literacy evaluations spanning years).
ALJ found a single severe impairment (cervicalgia/L1 compression fracture), declined to treat dyslexia/cognitive impairment as medically determinable, and assigned an RFC limiting plaintiff to medium work with simple, 1–2 step, non‑paced tasks.
ALJ concluded plaintiff could perform past relevant work and other jobs in the national economy and denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review.
The Commissioner conceded error regarding the ALJ’s evaluation of mental impairments; district court considered whether to remand for further proceedings or award benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff's literacy/cognitive impairments and should have treated them as medically determinable severe impairments	ALJ erred in not finding dyslexia/mental retardation medically determinable given abundant record evidence of illiteracy and cognitive limitations	Commissioner conceded error in ALJ's mental‑impairment evaluation	Court accepted concession and found mental impairment evaluation erroneous but focused on remedy rather than re‑weighing evidence
Whether remand should be for further proceedings or for an immediate award of benefits	Fischer argued that no useful purpose would be served by further proceedings because the grids mandate disability given medium RFC, age (closely approaching retirement), marginal/none education (illiteracy), and unskilled work history	Commissioner conceded error and did not oppose remand but did not insist on additional proceedings; urged further proceedings might be appropriate	Court held grid rule 203.01 applies (all four criteria met) and remanded for an immediate award of benefits; further proceedings would be futile

Gutierrez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2014) (defines substantial evidence standard)
Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) (court should not substitute its judgment for Commissioner when decision is rational)
Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand for benefits appropriate when further proceedings would serve no useful purpose)
Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (discretion to remand for benefits versus further proceedings)
Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (utility of further proceedings governs remedy)
Silveira v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2000) (skilled or semi‑skilled work with no transferable skills treated as unskilled)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (claimant must show that ALJ error was harmful)
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (establishes five‑step disability evaluation)
Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484 (9th Cir. 1986) (initial burden on claimant to establish disability)