22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T492,MEMORANDUM Brenda S. Mendez appeals the decision of the district court remanding her Social Security disability insurance benefits claim for further proceedings before the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) rather than for a determination of benefits. The district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding for further proceedings, because there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination of disability can me made. Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 590, 593 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the record presents “conflicting evidence, and not all essential factual issues have been resolved” by the ALJ, including (1) assessing Mendez’s credibility, (2) weighing the opinions of medical providers, and (3) incorporating Mendez’s residual functional capacity into the job descriptions presented by the vocational expert. See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014). Therefore, remand for an award of benefits under the-- credit-as-true rule is inappropriate. See id. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4bf,

MEMORANDUM

Brenda S. Mendez appeals the decision of the district court remanding her Social Security disability insurance benefits claim for further proceedings before the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) rather than for a determination of benefits.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding for further proceedings, because there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination of disability can me made. Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 590, 593 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the record presents “conflicting evidence, and not all essential factual issues have been resolved” by the ALJ, including (1) assessing Mendez’s credibility, (2) weighing the opinions of medical providers, and (3) incorporating Mendez’s residual functional capacity into the job descriptions presented by the vocational expert. See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014). Therefore, remand for an award of benefits under the-- credit-as-true rule is inappropriate. See id.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.