Rosezina W. v. Martin J. O'Malley
- Laurel Beeler
- 4:24-cv-08330
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Rosezina W. v. Martin J. O’Malley, Judge Westmore granted summary judgment to Rosezina W. and sent the case back for payment of Social Security benefits.
Rosezina W., whose Social Security disability-benefits claim for March 25, 2014, through December 31, 2019, was remanded for an immediate calculation and award of benefits; the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.
What happened
In Rosezina W. v. Martin J. O’Malley, Rosezina W. challenged the denial of benefits for the period from March 25, 2014, through December 31, 2019. The Commissioner agreed that the case should be sent back, but argued that more administrative proceedings were needed.
The court found that the administrative law judge improperly discounted psychological evaluations by Drs. C. Arpaci and Lara San Pedro. The court treated those opinions as true because the judge had not given legally sufficient reasons for rejecting them. The opinions indicated limitations that, according to vocational testimony, would have prevented Rosezina W. from maintaining employment.
Judge Kens A. Westmore granted Rosezina W.’s summary judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for an immediate calculation and award of benefits.
The detailed version
- Rosezina W. v. Martin J. O'Malley · No. 4:24-cv-08330
- Laurel Beeler
- Mar. 10, 2026
Background
Rosezina W. sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner’s decision on her applications for Title II and Title XVI disability benefits. The relevant period was March 25, 2014, through December 31, 2019. The administrative law judge later found Rosezina W. disabled beginning October 1, 2022, but the appeal concerned the earlier period.
The Commissioner conceded that a remand was appropriate. The remaining dispute was whether the case should be sent back for further proceedings or for an immediate award of benefits.
Medical Evidence and Error
The court held that the administrative law judge improperly weighed the psychological opinions of examining psychologists C. Arpaci, PsyD, and Lara San Pedro, PsyD. Dr. Arpaci identified significant limitations involving detailed and complex tasks, consistent work, attendance, completing a normal workday and workweek, and workplace stress. Dr. San Pedro identified additional moderate, marked, and extreme limitations involving work pace, attendance, interaction with others, responding to supervision and workplace changes, and completing a normal workday and workweek.
The administrative law judge relied on conflicting evidence from Dr. Acenas but gave that opinion no weight. The court concluded that the administrative law judge had not provided legally sufficient reasons for discounting the opinions of Drs. Arpaci and San Pedro. Because the claims were filed before March 27, 2017, the court applied the rule requiring improperly rejected medical opinions to be accepted as true in these circumstances.
Remand for Benefits
The court applied the “credit-as-true” rule, which can permit an immediate benefits award when the administrative law judge failed to give legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, no unresolved issues require further proceedings, and the record leaves no serious doubt about disability. A vocational expert testified that a person who was off task 15 percent of the time or consistently missed two or more days per month would not be employable.
The court found that, when credited as true, Dr. San Pedro’s opinions showed limitations that would cause Rosezina W. to be off task more than 15 percent of the workday and to miss two or more days per month. The court also found that the record as a whole left no serious doubt that she was disabled during the relevant period.
Disposition
Judge Kens A. Westmore granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for an immediate calculation and award of benefits. The court stated that judgment would issue separately.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.