Martha L. Woody v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA L. WOODY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-16918
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02164-DGC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 5, 2009
San Francisco, California
Before: B. FLETCHER, CANBY and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Martha L. Woody appeals the decision of the district
court remanding her Social Security disability insurance benefits claim for further
proceedings before the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) rather than for a
determination of benefits. This court has jurisdiction over the appeal under 28
FILED
NOV 17 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to
remand to the Commissioner for an award of benefits.
The ALJ determined that, in combination, Woody’s fibromyalgia, migraine
headaches, diabetes mellitus, insulin dependence, right shoulder injury, right knee
surgery, and back and neck pain along with cervical spondylosis amounted to a
severe impairment. Nonetheless, the ALJ found Woody’s testimony regarding her
pain and symptoms not fully credible, even though her impairments could be
expected to produce at least some of the alleged symptoms. The ALJ then made a
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination, finding jobs in which Woody
could work despite her limitations.
As the district court found and both parties agreed, the ALJ committed legal
error by rejecting Woody’s pain testimony without identifying specific reasons
supporting an adverse credibility finding. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028,
1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court remanded the case for further
proceedings, directing the ALJ to evaluate the duration of Woody’s disabling
conditions and to conduct another RFC evaluation, this time including all of the
relevant factors.
The decision whether to remand for further proceedings or for an immediate
payment of benefits is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Benecke v. Barnhart, 379

-- 2 of 3 --

3
F.3d 587, 590 (9th Cir. 2004). Evidence should be credited as true and an action
remanded for an award of benefits when: (1) the ALJ has failed to provide legally
sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence; (2) no outstanding issues remain that
must be resolved before a determination of disability can be made; and (3) it is
clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled
were the rejected evidence credited as true. Id. at 593; Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000).
After applying the credit-as-true rule to Woody’s improperly discredited
pain testimony, no outstanding issues remain to be resolved before determining
that Woody is entitled to benefits. The ALJ added facts mirroring the discredited
testimony to the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert (“VE”) when
evaluating RFC. The VE responded that such a person would not be able to work.
Furthermore, the ALJ already had determined that Woody met the duration
requirement. As it is clear the ALJ would be required to find Woody disabled, see
Benecke, 379 F.3d at 593-95, the district court abused its discretion in remanding
for further proceedings rather than for an award of benefits.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to remand to the
Commissioner of Social Security for an award of benefits.

-- 3 of 3 --