FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 20 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JARED STRADLING, No. 15-15504
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01685-DLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
San Francisco, California
*
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).
Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,
District Judge.***
Appellant Jared Stradling (Stradling) appeals the district court’s remand of
his claim for Social Security benefits for further administrative proceedings.
Stradling contends that his case should have been remanded for an immediate
award of benefits, and that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in
discounting the opinion of a nurse practitioner. We affirm the decision of the
district court.
The district court properly remanded the case for further proceedings,
because the record raises crucial questions regarding Stradling’s ability to obtain
needed medication, as well as the basis of the attendance and punctuality
limitations proposed by Dr. Hirdes. See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014) (clarifying that further administrative
proceedings are generally useful when “the record has not been fully developed,”
“there is a need to resolve conflicts and ambiguities,” or “the presentation of
further evidence may well prove enlightening in light of the passage of time”)
(citations, alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Brown-Hunter
v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 495-96 (9th Cir. 2015), as amended, (concluding that
***
The Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for
the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 4
although the ALJ committed legal error, an immediate award of benefits was not
warranted due to the need for further proceedings to address questions raised by
the record).
The record in Stradling’s case contains conflicting testimony and
ambiguities regarding the nature of Stradling’s inability to adhere to an effective
regimen of psychotropic medication. During his hearing before the ALJ, Stradling
attributed his inability to maintain use of medications to the loss of health benefits,
which occurred once he secured employment. However, during an earlier visit
with his provider, Stradling claimed that he “couldn’t explain why” he had stopped
taking his medications. In addition, the record is devoid of evidence corroborating
Stradling’s contention that his failure to maintain use of his prescribed medication
correlates with a loss of insurance benefits. Additionally, further proceedings may
serve to elucidate the moderate attendance and punctuality limitations on his ability
to sustain work proposed by Dr. Hirdes.
The district court correctly determined that substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s rejection of the assessment of the nurse practitioner. The ALJ provided
germane reasons for discounting the nurse practitioner’s opinion. See Britton v.
Colvin, 787 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that “a nurse practitioner
is not an acceptable medical source,” and is properly characterized as an “other
Page 3 of 4
source,” the testimony of whom the ALJ may discount if he gives germane reasons
for doing so).
AFFIRMED.
Page 4 of 4