Hamby v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 3:16-cv-08276

Plaintiff Jeffrey Hamby applied for Social Security disability and SSI, alleging onset January 1, 2013, based on left-leg injuries from 2008–2009 and related limitations.
ALJ Randolph Shum denied benefits after a November 2014 hearing, finding severe impairments of lumbar degenerative changes and knee problems but no listed impairment equivalence.
ALJ assessed an RFC for light work with limitations and concluded Hamby could perform his past work as an automobile salesperson.
The ALJ gave moderate weight to consultative examiners (Drs. Baugh and Wilkins) and non‑examining consultants, but failed to consider a treating physician Dr. Venger’s more restrictive opinion.
The Appeals Council denied review; Hamby appealed to district court. The Commissioner conceded the ALJ erred by not considering Dr. Venger’s opinion. The sole dispute was whether to remand for further proceedings or for an award of benefits.
The district court found the record contained conflicting medical opinions about sitting/standing capacity and other ambiguities (including ER treatment showing Hamby ambulatory), and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ lawfully rejected/failed to consider treating physician opinion	ALJ failed to consider Dr. Venger’s restrictive opinion; error required relief	Commissioner conceded ALJ erred in failing to consider Dr. Venger	Court: ALJ erred by not considering the treating opinion (first prong met)
Whether record is complete so court should credit evidence as true and award benefits	Hamby argued error is harmful and crediting Dr. Venger would compel a finding of disability	Commissioner argued remand required (but conceded error)	Court: Record contains conflicts/ambiguities among medical opinions; further proceedings are required (second prong not met)
Whether remand for award of benefits is appropriate under Ninth Circuit credit-as-true test	Hamby sought benefits on remand under the three‑part test	Commissioner did not oppose remand but asked further proceedings	Court: Did not award benefits; remanded to ALJ for further factfinding and resolution of conflicts
Remedy standard to apply on concession of error	N/A — focuses on applying Treichler/Garrison framework	N/A — same framework acknowledged	Court applied Ninth Circuit standards (credit-as-true and discretion) and remanded for additional proceedings

Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (sets out three‑part credit‑as‑true standard and discusses when courts may remand for benefits)
Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (explains when remand for benefits is appropriate and necessity of assessing outstanding issues before crediting evidence)
Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2015) (instructs that courts evaluate whether the record is fully developed and whether medical evidence conflicts with opinion testimony)
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review: decision must be supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error)
Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (describes the five‑step sequential evaluation for disability)