FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIANE ROXBURY, No. 10-35370
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:08-cv-00951-HO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 4, 2011**
Portland, Oregon
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BEA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
page 2
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., No. 10-
35139, 2011 WL 1108221, at *2 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2011).
AFFIRMED.