ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler, recommending that the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) filed by Plaintiff be granted, the cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20) filed by Defendant be denied, and the case be remanded for a calculation and award of SSI benefits.

I. Background

Plaintiff was born on August 21, 1955. (Admin R. at 248). On July 16, 2008, Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") with the Social Security Administration, alleging a disability onset date of June 1, 2008. Id. at 213, 248. On November 25, 2008, Plaintiff's application was denied. Id. at 108. On February 13, 2009, the denial was affirmed on reconsideration. Id. at 117. On March 20, 2009, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing. Id. at 123. On September 2, 2010, a hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Eve B. Godfrey. Id. at 60. On November 24, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision that Plaintiff is not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. Id. at 89-96.

On February 15, 2012, the Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration ("SSA") granted Plaintiff's request to review the decision of the ALJ, vacated the hearing decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. at 103-104. In its order, the Appeals Council stated,

Id. at 103 (citations omitted).

On September 12, 2012, ALJ Eve B. Godfrey conducted a second hearing. Id. at 53. On October 24, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision that Plaintiff was not disabled. Id. at 17-24. In the decision, the ALJ stated

Id. at 23 (citations omitted).

On April 21, 2014, the Appeals Council for the SSA denied Plaintiff's request for review of the October 24, 2012 decision by the ALJ. Id. at 4. On July 28, 2014, the Appeals Council granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file a civil action. Id. at 2. On August 29, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint for Review of Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 1).

On June 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 16). On August 3, 2015, Defendant filed an amended cross-motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 20).

On February 10, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 21). The Magistrate Judge stated in part,

(ECF No. 21 at 8-10).

The Magistrate Judge stated that "there is no need to further develop the record or hold further administrative hearings.... Plaintiff submitted what he could...." (ECF No. 21 at 11 (citing Admin R. at 23, 55-56, 410)). The Magistrate Judge stated that "the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reason to reject Plaintiff's testimony that he completed 11th, not 12th, grade." (ECF No. 21 at 11). The Magistrate Judge stated that "if the improperly discredited evidence — that Plaintiff completed 11th grade, dropped out of school in 12th grade, and attended special education classes — were credited as true, the ALJ would be required on remand to find that Plaintiff has a limited education and is disabled under 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b) (as well as 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 203.10 (Medical-Vocational Rule 203.10))." Id. Finding that the record "demonstrates that Plaintiff was disabled as of the date he turned 55 years old (August 21, 2010)," the Magistrate Judge recommended that "Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, Defendant's cross-motion be DENIED, and the case be remanded for a calculation and award of SSI benefits." Id.

On February 23, 2016, Defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 22). On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 23).

II. Legal Standard

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) ("Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.").

III. Discussion

Defendant objects to the conclusion in the Report and Recommendation that the ALJ erred in finding that the Plaintiff had a twelfth-grade education. Defendant contends that the Court should defer to the decision of the ALJ to give the most weight to Plaintiff's Disability Report indicating that he completed twelfth grade because it was made "before [Plaintiff] was aware of any reason to suggest he was less educated." Id. at 4. Defendant objects to the recommendation that the case be remanded for an award of SSI benefits and contends that the Court should remand the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff contends that the Court should adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and remand the case on the basis set forth in the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 23 at 4).

A. Plaintiff's Education

Section 416.962(b) of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations states

20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b). Section 416.964 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations explains how education is evaluated as a vocational factor:

20 C.F.R. § 416.964. The educational category of "[l]imited education means ability in reasoning, arithmetic, and language skills, but not enough to allow a person with these educational qualifications to do most of the more complex job duties needed in semi-skilled or skilled jobs. We generally consider that a 7th grade through the 11th grade level of formal education is a limited education." 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b)(3). The educational category of "[h]igh school education and above means abilities in reasoning, arithmetic, and language skills acquired through formal schooling at a 12th grade level or above. We generally consider that someone with these educational abilities can do semi-skilled work." 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b)(4).

It is undisputed that Plaintiff has severe impairments. (Admin R. at 19). Plaintiff turned 55 years old on August 21, 2010 and entered the age category of advanced age on that date. Id. at 23. It is undisputed that Plaintiff does not have past relevant work experience. Id. The issue presented, in determining if Plaintiff is disabled under 20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b), is whether Plaintiff has a "limited education or less." See 20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b).

Evidence in the record that Plaintiff completed twelfth grade consists of a Disability Report filed with the Social Security Administration in 2008. (Admin. R. at 317). The record contains a letter from Plaintiff's sister indicating that Plaintiff attended high school from 1970 to 1973, "covering grades tenth through twelfth." Id. at 423.

Other evidence in the record contradicts a finding that Plaintiff completed twelfth grade. On September 11, 2008, Plaintiff's psychiatrist stated in progress notes that Plaintiff was "[i]n Special Education in school and went to twelfth grade but dropped out. No GED." (Admin. R. at 447). On October 28, 2008, the State agency Consultative Examiner stated that "claimant dropped out of school in the 12th grade. He stated he was in special education classes in school. He has no further education or specialized training." Id. at 478. Provider notes from the UCSD Medical Center on January 23, 2009 indicate that Plaintiff told his doctor that he was put into special education classes in fourth grade. Id. at 601. In the first hearing in front of the ALJ, the ALJ asserted, "All right. And you have a twelfth grade education," and Plaintiff responded, "More eleven grade, special class." Id. at 66. In the Disability Report filed on September 2, 2010, Plaintiff stated that he was dyslexic, checked eleventh grade as the highest grade of school completed, and indicated that he attended special education classes from 1969 to 1972. Id. at 393-94. The record contains a letter submitted by Plaintiff's counsel to the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, stating

Id. at 410. In a declaration, Plaintiff's counsel states, "During my initial interview with the claimant I asked the claimant what the highest level of education was that he had achieved. The claimant told me that he completed the 11th grade and did not receive a high school diploma or GED." Id. at 424.

In addition to evidence that Plaintiff did not complete twelve years of formal education and attended special education classes, the record contains evidence that Plaintiff cannot read or write well, is dyslexic, needs help reading and understanding words, has problems adding and subtracting, and needs assistance filling out forms and understanding instructions. Id. at 116, 332, 347, 349, 351, 363, 393, 586.

The ALJ relied on the 2008 Disability Report to conclude that Plaintiff completed twelve years of formal education, stating

(Admin R. at 23).

The February 15, 2012 decision of the Appeals Council for the SSA is the earliest document in the record indicating that the issue of Plaintiff's education was central to the determination of his disability. The record does not indicate that Plaintiff would have reason to suggest that he was less educated until the 2012 decision by the Appeals Council was issued. Multiple statements in the record regarding Plaintiff's limited education were made in 2008, prior to the date of the 2012 Appeals Council decision. Plaintiff's physicians and his legal counsel indicate that Plaintiff informed them in 2008 that he was enrolled in special education classes and did not complete twelfth grade. Plaintiff's consistent statements to physicians and Plaintiff's counsel in 2008 were made around the same time as the 2008 Disability Report, indicating that the reason for the inconsistency in the record is due to an inaccuracy in the 2008 Disability Report. The record shows that Plaintiff has difficulty understanding, reading, and completing forms, supporting an inference that the 2008 Disability Report was not completed personally by Plaintiff. The ALJ erred in disregarding evidence of Plaintiff's consistent statements to his physicians, his attorney, and the ALJ from September 2008 to the present that he did not complete twelfth grade and was enrolled in special education classes.

The ALJ relied on the 2008 Disability Report that stated Plaintiff had completed twelfth grade to find that Plaintiff had a high school education level, however, section 416.964 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations explains that education is not evaluated solely in terms of the claimant's formal education level. In this case, Plaintiff is sixty years old and has not participated in any formal education for over forty years. Evidence in the record regarding Plaintiff's enrollment in special education classes, his difficulty reading, understanding English, completing forms, and doing addition or subtraction, contradicts a finding that Plaintiff's education level is "high school education and above." See 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b)(4). The ALJ failed to provide a legally sufficient reason to reject the evidence of Plaintiff's limited ability in reasoning, language skills, and arithmetic that supports a finding that Plaintiff has a "limited education or less." See 20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b).

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the ALJ failed to provide a legally sufficient reason to reject the evidence of Plaintiff's limited ability in reasoning, language skills, and arithmetic that supports a finding that Plaintiff has a "limited education or less." See 20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b).

B. Remedy

When a district court reverses the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, "the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation." Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403, 407 (9th Cir.2015) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744, 105 S.Ct. 1598, 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985)). Case law from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "precludes a district court from remanding a case for an award of benefits unless certain prerequisites are met." Dominguez, 808 F.3d at 407 (citing Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2014)). The first step in assessing whether remanding a case for an award of benefits is appropriate is for a district court to

Dominguez, 808 F.3d at 407 (citations and internal quotations omitted). If there are `outstanding issues requiring resolution before considering whether to hold that the claimant's testimony is credible as a matter of law ... the district court cannot deem the erroneously disregarded testimony to be true; rather, the court must remand for further proceedings. Id. at 409.

If, however, the district court determines that "the record has been fully developed, ... the district court must next consider whether the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand if the improperly discredited evidence were credited as true." Id. at 408 (citations and internal quotations omitted). If crediting the evidence as true, the ALJ "would necessarily have to conclude that the claimant were disabled, ... the district court may exercise its discretion to remand the case for an award of benefits. A district court is generally not required to exercise such discretion, however. District courts retain flexibility in determining the appropriate remedy." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). Even when the prerequisites that allow a district court to remand for an award of benefits are met, a court "may remand on an open record for further proceedings `when the record as a whole creates serious doubt as to whether the claimant is, in fact, disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.'" Id. (citing Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir.2014)).

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the ALJ failed to provide a legally sufficient reason to reject the evidence of Plaintiff's limited ability in reasoning, language skills, and arithmetic that supports a finding that Plaintiff has a "limited education or less." See 20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b). The record in this case is fully developed. After the Appeals Council issued its decision, the ALJ held the record open for additional information regarding Plaintiff's education and conducted a second hearing before issuing its decision. Plaintiff's counsel submitted a letter, stating that counsel "spoke[] to Mr. Mack's sister Marjorie Mack.... She believes he attended the 12th grade but did not graduate." (Admin. R. at 410). In the letter, Plaintiff's counsel asserted that "[w]e were unable to obtain any further information." Id. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand if the evidence that the ALJ improperly discredited were credited as true. See Dominguez, 808 F.3d at 408. Section 416.962(b) of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Medical Vocational Rule 203.10 directs that if a claimant has severe impairments, is of advanced age, has no past relevant work experience, and has an education level of "limited education or less," the claimant must be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b); Medical Vocational Rule 203.10. The record shows that Plaintiff has severe impairments (Admin R. at 19), is of advanced age at 55 years old (Id. at 23), and has no past relevant work experience (Id.). If the ALJ were to give appropriate credit to the substantial evidence in the record that Plaintiff has a "limited education or less," the ALJ would "necessarily have to conclude that Plaintiff is disabled." See 20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b); Dominguez, 808 F.3d at 408. The Court finds that all of the Dominguez prerequisites have been met. See id. at 407-408. The record as a whole does not create "serious doubt as to whether Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act." See id. (citing Burrell, 775 at 1141,). Because it serves no purpose to remand the case on an open record, the Court remands the case for award of benefits.

IV. Conclusion

After conducting a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and considering the entire file, including Defendant's objections, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation correctly determined that the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff should be granted and the amended cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant should be denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is adopted in its entirety. The motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) filed by Plaintiff is granted. The amended cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20) filed by Defendant is denied. The case is remanded for a calculation and award of SSI benefits.