Strauss v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SEC. ADMIN.
635 F.3d 1135
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff filed for disability benefits on December 23, 2003, alleging disability from October 31, 2001 due to left-knee pain, hypertension, and depression.
- Initial and reconsideration denials followed; an ALJ held in 2006 Plaintiff was not disabled; Appeals Council denied review.
- The district court remanded per stipulation, directing a new hearing, further record development, and explicit considerations (obesity, credibility, lay testimony, RFC, and steps four/five with Vocational Expert).
- The Appeals Council also remanded, ordering updated medical records and medical source statements and reevaluation of credibility.
- A second supplemental hearing occurred in 2008 with another not-disabled finding; the district court later held ALJ noncompliant with remand orders and remanded for benefits.
- The Ninth Circuit held that the district court may not award benefits without first determining disability on the merits, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could award benefits without a disability finding | Strauss argued for immediate benefits due to ALJ noncompliance | Strauss's position; the court should remand for disability determination | Remand required; no automatic award of benefits without a disability finding |
| Did ALJ comply with remand orders to update records and obtain statements | Remand orders required comprehensive record updates | Noncompliance not asserted as terminal to entitlement | ALJ failed to comply with remand orders; remand affirmed |
| What is the proper remedy given ALJ's noncompliance | Benefits should be paid due to evidence of disability if credited | Remand is appropriate to determine disability on the merits | Remand to district court for proper disability determination; benefits not yet awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand for benefits when record fully developed and disability shown if criteria met)
- Varney v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 859 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1988) (context for remand when beneficial for claimant’s disability)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing agency decisions)
- Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2005) (obduracy alone does not establish entitlement to benefits; must rely on record evidence)