Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cheri L. ESSLINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35159.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 6, 2012.
    
    Filed June 13, 2012.
    Charles W. Talbot, Talbot & Associates, PS, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Brian Kipnis, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Leisa Wolf, Esquire, SSA-Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and HALL, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Cheri Esslinger appeals the denial of her deceased father’s, Randall Esslinger’s, application for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. Appellant argues that substantial evidence does not support the Commissioner’s decision that Esslinger was not disabled. We reverse and remand.

Appellant contends that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed legal error by taking into consideration the impact of alcohol and drug abuse on Esslinger’s limitations during the initial five-step sequential evaluation. We agree. Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 955 (9th Cir.2001). Instead, the ALJ should have considered the impact of substance abuse on Esslinger’s impairments only after completing the five-step sequential evaluation and finding Esslinger disabled. Id.

Next, we hold that the ALJ’s physical residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment is not supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ provided valid reasons for rejecting the opinions of Drs. Lee and McGrath. However, the ALJ committed legal error by failing to address or evaluate Dr. Amin’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c); see Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). Because the ALJ did not provide a statement of reasons for rejecting Dr. Amin’s opinion, we cannot say it was “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” Stout v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir.2006). In addition, the ALJ failed to provide either specific and legitimate or clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the opinions of Drs. Smith, Takaro, and Subramanian. Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.2009).

Finally, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s assessment of Esslinger’s mental RFC because the ALJ improperly discounted the severity of Esslinger’s mental health issues due to substance abuse, Bustamante, 262 F.3d at 955, and failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the opinions of Drs. Brzezinski-Stein, Hwang, and Price. Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198. The ALJ did not, however, err in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Worrell because he is not a psychiatrist. Lombardo v. Schweiker, 749 F.2d 565, 566 (9th Cir.1984).

In light of these errors, we reverse and remand so that the ALJ can complete the five-step sequential evaluation giving full credit to the opinions of Drs. Amin, Smith, Takaro, Subramanian, Brzezinski-Stein, Hwang, and Price and without considering the impact of substance abuse on Esslinger’s mental and physical impairments. Bustamante, 262 F.3d at 955. If the ALJ concludes that Esslinger was disabled, he must then determine whether each limitation entitling him to disability would remain in the absence of drug and alcohol abuse. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1535(b). If the ALJ ultimately finds that Esslinger was disabled, he must then calculate the disability onset date.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . All references to "Dr. Smith” refer to Dr. Douglas Smith.
     
      
      . Appellant also argues the ALJ erred in discrediting Essligner's subjective complaints about pain. However, the ALJ was entitled to discredit these complaints based on Esslinger’s testimony about his daily activities. Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.2008).