AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Diane ROXBURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DefendantAppellee.

MEMORANDUM[fn**] [fn**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The district court didn't abuse its discretion in determining that Roxbury is not entitled to an immediate award of benefits because, even crediting the state doctors' opinions as true, it's not "clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled" given the state doctors' conclusion that Roxbury had no limitations on handling or fingering. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, there are "sufficient unanswered questions in the record that the district court's determination to remand the case for further proceedings was not an abuse of discretion." Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Strauss v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 1135, 1137-138 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ROXBURY v. COMM., SOCIAL SEC. ADMIN
(May 6, 2011)