Zidan

facts, the applicable legal standards, and the arguments made by both parties. This ruling refers to the claimant by their initials, B. Z., for anonymity purposes. B.Z. uses the pronoun “they.” The agency has conceded that the ALJ erred in his decision to deny benefits. The only question is whether it is appropriate to remand for an award of benefits or to remand for further proceedings. All three elements of the credit-as-true rule are met. The agency has not “point[ed] to anything in the record that the ALJ overlooked and explain[ed] how that evidence casts into serious doubt” B. Z.’s assertion that they are disabled. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1022 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court has also independently reviewed the entire record and similarly finds no evidence casting serious doubt on B. Z.’s entitlement to benefits during the relevant time period. Thus, remand for award of benefits is appropriate. 1. ALJ committed legal error. Although the agency concedes legal error, a discussion of the error is needed to understand why benefits should be awarded. The ALJ improperly discounted the opinions of clinical counselor Erin Carnahan, Dr. Demetry Apostle, and Dr. Katherine Wiebe.…