McDaniel

INTRODUCTION

15 In this review of the denial of continuing Social Security benefits, both parties move for 16 summary judgment. The administrative law judge below applied the wrong law in evaluating 17 plaintiff’s medical improvement and assessing her ability to work. Thus, for the reasons stated 18 herein, the decision below is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings.

STATEMENT

20 21 1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. In September 2011, the Social Security Administration first awarded plaintiff Patricia M. 22 Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. An administrative law 23 judge found that plaintiff had suffered from bipolar disorder and anxiety since September 24 2009. The ALJ recommended a continuing disability review in four years (AR 335–37). 25 At that review, though, the SSA determined that plaintiff’s condition had improved and 26 she was no longer disabled. In March 2015, the SSA notified plaintiff that her benefits would 27 officer affirmed the determination that she was no longer disabled. Plaintiff appealed. She requested a hearing before an ALJ in May 2016. Though originally scheduled for August …