N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B ARB AR

A W EB B ER , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r, Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-35312 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00890-R SL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt S. La snik, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 5, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , FISHER , and N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED OCT 26 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B arbara W e bbe r a

ppe a ls from

a de nia l of supple m e n ta l se c urity inc om e unde r Title XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. 1 She a lle ge s tha

t the Adm inistra

tive Law Judge (“ ALJ” ) im

prope rly disc ounte d te stim ony

from he r and he r e xam ine rs, whic h the n a llowe d the ALJ to poseto the voc ationa l e xpe rt a n inc om ple te hy pothe t ic a l tha

t om itte d he r re ports of da ily c ry i ng. B e c a

use the ALJ’ s e rrors in finding M s. W e bbe r not c re d ible ra ise se rious doubts a s to whe the r the re wa s substa ntia l e vide nc e for de nia l of be ne fits, we re v e rse the distric t c ourt a n d re m and to the ALJ. W e m u st uphold the

Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra tion's disa bility de te rm i nation unle ss it c onta ins le ga l e rror or is not supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e . Stout v . C

omm'r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th C ir. 2006); 42 U.S.C . §§ 405(g), 1383(c )(3). If a c la i m ant ha s produc e d obje c tive m e dic a l
e vide nc e of a

n im pa irm e nt, a

nd if the ALJ did not find “ a ffirm ative e vide nc e ” of
m a linge ring, “ the ALJ c an re j e c t the c la i m ant’ s te stim ony a bout these ve rity

of he r

1 Appe lla

nt's e xc e rpts of re c ord we re file d unde r se a l in this C o urt in 2014 pursua

nt to a notic e of filing under se a l rathe r tha n a m otion for pe rm ission to se a l , ba se d sole l y

on the fa c t tha

t the doc um e nts ha d be e n se a le d in the distric t c ourt pursua

nt to loc a l rule . As of April 4, 2016, Inte rim Ninth C irc uit R

ule 27- 13(a ) provide s tha

t doc um e n t s in soc ia l se c urity c a se s, inc luding a dm inistra tive re c o rds, a re not file d unde r se a l in this C o urt, though they are othe rwise re s tric te d pursua nt to Fe d. R . App. P. 25(a )(5) an d C irc uit R ule 5.2(c ). To the e xte nt tha t this disposition a

ddre sse s m atte rs c o nta ine d in the pre viously

se a le d e x c e rpts of re c ord, we he re by

unse a l the e xc e rpts with re spe c t to tha t inform ation. 2sym

ptom s only

by offe ring spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons for doing so.” Smole n v . C

hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th C ir. 1996). M any of the A L J’ s fa c tua l a

nd le ga l ba se s for disc re diting M s. W e bbe r’ s te stim ony and e vide nc e we re in e rror: 1. The ALJ a sse rte d tha

t M s. W e bbe r ha d only

be gun c o m

pla ining of de pre s sion “ a

c ouple of we e ks be fore she file d he r SSI a pplic ation” in Se pte m

be r 2010. Howe ve r, the re c ord c onta ins a de pre ssion dia gnosis in Novem be r 2009. 2. The ALJ found tha

t M s. W e bbe r did not indic ate any proble m s with
m e m o ry in he r first a

nd se c ond func tion re ports. Howe ve r, M s . W e bbe r indic ate d in the first func tion re port tha t she “ som e t im e s” ne e de d he lp or re m inde rs to ta ke
m e dic ine an d sta

te d in the se c ond re port tha t she ne e de d “ spe c ia l re m inde rs to ta ke
c are of pe rsona l ne e ds a

nd groom ing” and “ re m inde rs ta king m e dic ine .” 3. The ALJ found inc onsiste nc y be twe e n M s. W e bbe r’ s te stim ony tha t she did not shop or do la

undry and sta te m e n ts in he r func tion re p orts tha t “ she did both.” B ut a

ny c ha nge in the s e c a

pa c itie s be t

we e n the func tion re ports a nd the he aring c an be e xpla ine d by a de te riorat ing c ondition over tim e . M ore o ve r, what M s. W e b be r a c tua lly

sa i d in the first func tion re port wa s tha t “ she c ould c le an a

nd
wa sh c lothe s whe n “ a

ble ”

— not tha t she did so re gula

rly
.

34. The ALJ found inc onsiste nc y be twe e n M s. W e bbe r’ s te stim ony tha t she did not dre s s he r grandc hildre n for sc hool a n d he r e arlie r stat e m e nt tha t she did so. Howe ve r, M s. W e bbe r te stifie d at he r he aring tha t she did not he lp he r gran dc hildre n ge t re a d

y for sc hool “ any m ore ” be c a use at the a ge s of five and six, the y c ould “ pre tty m uc h dre ss the m s e lve s .” 5. The ALJ c ite d M s. W e bbe r’ s sta te m e nts a bout ha v ing a ve ry

busy
we e ke nd a s e vide nc e tha

t “ c la i m ant is m ore a c tive tha n she portra

y e d.” Howe ve r, da ily a c tivitie s m ay only

“ be grounds for a

n a dve rse c re dibility

finding if a
c la im ant is a

ble to spe nd a

substa ntia l pa rt of his da

y e n ga ge d in pursuits involving the p e rform anc e of phy sic a l func tions tha t a re tra nsfe ra ble to a work se tting.” Orn
v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th C ir. 2007) (inte rna l c ita t ions a nd quota tion m arks
om i tte d). The re c o rd shows tha t M s. W e bbe r spe nt he r day s prim arily watc hing TV, re a ding, a

n d visiting the

doc tor. Our c a s e la

w would not perm it disc re diting a
c la im ant on the se fa c ts. Se e id. (stating tha t “ re a ding, wa

tc h ing te le vision, a

nd
c oloring in c oloring books a re a c tivitie s tha

t a re so unde m a

n ding tha t the y c annot be sa id to be ar a m e an ingful re lationship to the a c tivitie s of the workpla c e ” ); Ve rtigan v . Halte r , 260 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (9th C ir. 2001) (holding tha t a
c la im ant’ s a

b ility to “ go groc e ry

shopping with a ssista

nc e , wa lk a

pproxim ate ly

an hour in the m a l ls, ge t toge the r with he r frie n ds, pla y c ards, swim , wat c h te le vision,

4and re a d . . . doe s not in a ny wa y de tra c t from

he r c re dibility

a s to he r ove ra ll disa bility ” ). 6. The ALJ found inc onsiste nc i e s in M s. W e bbe r’ s re p orts of suic i da l ide ation. B ut in e a c h c i te d insta nc e , M s . W e bbe r wa s only re porting he r m e nta l sta te at diffe re nt tim e s. She told Dr. W idla n tha t she onc e ha d suic ida l ide ations but did not a

t the tim e . She told Ne ighborc are a fe w m onths la

te r that she wa s having thoughts of suic ide . Se v e ra l m onths a fte r that , she re porte d to Dr. Pa rke r that she did not ha

ve suic ida l ide ations a

t pre se nt. B e c a

use the re ports de a lt with diffe re nt tim e s, the y

we re not inc onsiste nt. M s. W e bbe r c o nc e de s tha t she wa s inc o nsiste nt in he r re ports to he r he a lthc are provide rs c onc e rning he r m arijua na use . W e have sa id tha

t “ c onflic ting or inc onsiste nt te s tim ony

c onc e rning a lc o hol use c an c ontributeto a n a dve rse
c re d ibility

finding.” Robbins v . Soc . Se c . Admin., 4 66 F.3d 880, 884 (9th C ir. 2006); se e also Ve rduzc o v . Apfe l , 188 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th C ir. 1999). Howe v e r, in this c a se , the ALJ did not use inc onsiste nt re ports of drug usea s a ba sis for finding M s. W e bbe r ge ne ra lly inc re dible , but inste a d use d the fa ilure to re port
m arijua na use a s a ba sis for disc re diting Dr. W idla n ’ s re port. B e c a

u se we re vie w only the re a sons provide d by

the ALJ a

nd m ay not a ffirm

the ALJ ba s e d on a ground upon whic h she did not re ly , se e C onne tt v
. Barnhart , 340 F.3d 871, 874

5(9th C ir. 2003), we c annot a ffirm the ALJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding ba se d on this inc o nsiste nc y . The e rrors a

bove wa rrant re m and be c a

use M s. W e bbe r’ s c a se turne d upon the ALJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. Absent this finding, the ALJ c ould not ha ve
om i tte d M s . W e bbe r’ s re porte d c ry ing spe lls from he r hy pothe tic a l. Se e Russe ll v

. Sulliva n , 930 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th C ir. 1991) (“ Hy pothe tic a l que stions pose d to a
voc ationa l e xpe rt m

ust se t out all the lim ita

tions a nd re stric t ions of the pa

rtic ula r
c la im ant, inc luding pa in a nd a n ina bility to e nga ge in c e rta in a c tivitie s .” ). B e c a use the v oc ationa l e xpe rt te stifie d tha t som e one who routine ly

but unpre d ic ta

b l y c rie d
se ve ra l tim e s a

da y would fa c e prohibitive

diffic ulty m a inta ining e m ploy m e nt, the ALJ would ha

v e ha d to a

ward be ne fits ha d she found the c la im ant c re dible
. On re m and, the ALJ m

ust re nde r a

ne wc re dibility

finding in c onform ity

with Soc ia l Se c urity

R u ling 16-3p (e ffe c tive M arc h 28, 2016), whic h sta

te s tha t “ [i] n
e va luating a

n individual’ s sy

m ptom s, our a djudic ators will not a sse ss a n individual’ s ove ra ll c ha

ra c te r or truthfulne s s in them a nne r ty p ic a l ly use d during a

n
a dve rsaria l c ourt litiga

tion.” The ALJ should re c onside r, a s a ppropria te , the we ight
a ssigne d to c e rta in third-pa rty m e dic a l opinions tha

t ha d e arlie r be e n disc ounte d due to M s . W e bbe r’ s pe rc e i ve d la c k of c re dibility
. RE V E RSE D and RE M A NDE D
.
67