Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0904-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Naomi Fawn MARSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-17306
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted September 13, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed October 11, 2017
    James Hunt Miller, Esquire, Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Ellinor R. Coder, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before:-KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

While the Social Security Administration (SSA) is “responsible for making the determination or decision about whether [a claimant meets] the statutory definition of disability,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), Dr. Betat’s chart note contained information about Marsh’s condition and capacity that went beyond a mere statement of disability. These findings informed his assessment that she “appear[ed] to be disabled.” The ALJ therefore erred by neither considering Dr. Betat’s opinion nor providing reasons to reject it. “In order to reject an examining physician’s opinion, the ALJ has to give clear and convincing reasons.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, SSA’s position was not substantially justified. See, e.g., Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To avoid an award of EAJA fees ... the government must show that its position was substantially justified at each stage of the proceedings.”).

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