(SS) Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAYRA MARGARITA HERNANDEZ, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-0897 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 38) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an unfavorable 18 decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding her application for 19 disability benefits. The assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the 20 decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration be reversed and that this matter be 21 remanded for the immediate award of benefits. (Doc. 38.) The Court served the Findings and 22 Recommendations on the parties, notifying them that any objections were due within fourteen days. 23 (Id. at 11.) The Commissioner of Social Security filed objections. (Doc. 39.) 24 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 25 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including the Commissioner of Social Security’s 26 objections, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and 27 by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 28 eee IE IIE IIE EI 1 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated June 6, 2022 (Doc. 38), are ADOPTED ID 2 FULL. 3 2. The Commissioner of Social Security’s decision is reversed to the extent that it ceased 4 benefits on December 5, 2018. The Commissioner of Social Security is directed to 5 award benefits beginning from December 5, 2018.! 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and to close this 7 case. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: _July 6, 2022 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ||" In its objections, the Commissioner of Social Security claims that an order of award of benefits lacks specificity and asks for a determination of a termination date. The Court notes that an immediate award of 24 benefits, without further specificity, is ordinarily ordered without a further specification of an end date. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1023 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We reverse the judgment of the district court with 25 || instructions to remand to the ALJ for the calculation and award of benefits.”); Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 596 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Accordingly, we REVERSE the decision of the district court and REMAND with 26 || instructions to remand to the Commissioner of Social Security for an award of benefits.’’) (bolded portions of text omitted). Additionally, as the Commissioner of Social Security has argued, there is a process for 27 reevaluating benefits based on medical improvement, and nothing in this order precludes such a process. However, to the extent that the Commissioner of Social Security is again arguing that its decision to terminate 28 |! benefits based on medical improvement at a past date is supported by this record, the Court disagrees.