[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
We'll move on to the final case for this morning.

[00:00:03] Speaker 00:
Ramirez versus the commissioner.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
You may proceed.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
Go ahead and introduce yourself, please.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
My name is Catherine Dykes.

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
I'm an attorney for Ana Ramirez.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
I would not like to reserve time for rebuttal, and I'm hoping to be less than 10 minutes.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
The commissioner and I agree that the ALJ needs to take new evidence and reevaluate evidence on remand.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
What we disagree on here today is whether the prior ALJ denial is erased because of that remand.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
I'm arguing that a remand that discusses or touches on the evidence for the step four evaluation does not erase that prior ALJ remand.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
In this case, this is a very long case.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
There's three ALJ denials.

[00:01:23] Speaker 02:
The relevant denials are the last two, with the same judge, A.L.J.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
Waters.

[00:01:30] Speaker 02:
In the second denial, she limited my client to sedentary.

[00:01:35] Speaker 02:
On appeal, the remand stated that she erred in two physician opinions.

[00:01:43] Speaker 02:
and the symptom testimony and the jobs identified at step five.

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
Let me pause you right there.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
Just so we're, I know what we're talking about here.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
You're talking about the district court decision in 2021.

[00:01:55] Speaker 02:
The most recent district court remand.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
So 2021.

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
Not so because there's the more recent district court decision in 2024, which is what we're reviewing, but you're talking about 2021.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
And also there is both in your arguments and in

[00:02:14] Speaker 01:
cases some confusion about whether we're talking about, with regard to either the law of mandate or the law of the case or some sort of preclusion issue, the ALJ's opinion or the district court's opinion.

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
I think we're talking about the district court's remand and what it told the ALJ to do.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
I'm going to argue both the law of the case and the rule of mandate.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
But in either case, we're talking about the district court as of itself, as opposed to the ALJ as of itself.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
In other words, the district court, it was two different judges, but it was the same district court.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
remanded for specific purposes.

[00:03:05] Speaker 01:
First of all, it was remanded to find out whether there were additional limitations in the plaintiff's RFC, which may warrant a fine.

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
And several different times she said she was remanded to find out whether there were additional limitations.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
And that is either the law of the case or the rule of mandate, vis-a-vis the district court.

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
So is that what you're telling us?

[00:03:31] Speaker 01:
Are you telling us that the ALJ couldn't change his own opinion no matter what the district court said?

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
Well, my argument is that the ALJ erred in this case because they did not explain

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
any reasoning for changing the RFC from sedentary to light.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
They did not explain new evidence.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
They didn't explain why they varied from the district court's ruling.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
They didn't explain any new analysis related to the current decision.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
But could they vary from the district court's ruling?

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
I mean, it was also true, as I understand it, that the district court, that district court opinion

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
said that the commissioner had conceded through waiver that the ALJ had erred in rejecting plaintiff symptom testimony and the opinions of Dr. Maeda and nurse practitioner Carroll.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
Now, was that what the ALJ did this time?

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
Did he now reject the plaintiff symptom testimony and the opinions of Dr. Maeda and nurse practitioner Carroll?

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
So the ALJ made all of the same findings with one exception.

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
In the second denial, she stated that she was crediting the reviewing physician opinion Wavik, who gave a light RFC.

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
However, there were additional treatment records after that opinion

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
that warranted additional limitations to sedentary, which I agree with.

[00:05:13] Speaker 02:
There's lots of information, lots of medical treatment.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
after that medical opinion that warranted additional limitations to sedentary during the relevant period.

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
The relevant period is from 2015 to 2017.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
So, and in the most recent ALJ denial, the case at bar, she did not explain why she changed course and gave that opinion great weight