N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C AR Y ANDER SON, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 18-35541 DC No. C V 17-0133 SLG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Sharon L. Gle a son, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 13, 2019 Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : TASHIM A , W . FLETC HER , and B ER ZON, C irc u it Judge s. C ary R usse ll Ande rson (“ Ande rson” ) a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt
a ffirm ing the C om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s (the “ C om m issione r” ) de nia l of his a pplic ation for Disa

bility Insura nc e B e ne fits a

nd Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc o m e be n e fits unde r Title s II and XVI of the Soc i a l Se c urity Ac t. W e re v ie w de 

# FIL ED AUG 13 2019 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.novo thedistric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the de nia l of be ne fits, a nd we m ay
re ve rse the de c ision of thea dm inistra t ive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) whe re that de c ision is ba se d on le ga l e rror or whe re the findings of fa c t a re not supporte d by

substa ntia l
e vide nc e . Buc k

v . Be rry hill , 869 F.3d 1040, 1048 (9th C i r. 2017). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we re ve rse and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. W e hold tha

t the ALJ c om

m itte d re ve rsible e rror in disc re diting Anderson’ s subje c tive te stim ony . Whe re , a s he re , the ALJ ha s found tha t the c l a im ant ha s

“ pre se nte d obje c tive m e d ic a l e vide nc e of a n unde rly ing im

pa irm e nt whic h c ould
re a s ona bly be e xpe c te d to produc e the pa in or othe r sym ptom s a lle ge d” and the re is no e vide nc e of m a linge ring, “ the ALJ c an re je c t the c la im a

nt’ s te stim ony

a bout the s e ve rity

of [his] sy

m ptom s only

by offe ring spe c ific , c le ar and c onvinc ing
re a s ons for doing so.” Linge n fe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th C ir. 2007) (quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tions omitte d). Unde r the spe c ific , c le ar and c o nvinc ing sta nda rd, the ALJ m

ust “ ide ntify

the te s tim ony

she found not c re dible ” and “ link that te stim ony

to the pa rtic ula r parts of the re c ord supporting her non-c re d ibility de te rm i nation.” Brow n-Hunte r v . C olv in , 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th C ir. 2015). He re , the A LJ re

je c te d thre e portions of Anderson’ s te stim ony a s not c re d ible : (1)

2Ande rson’ s “pa in re late d to psoria tic arthritis,”(2) Ande rson’ s “ a lle ge d diffic ulty using his ha

nds,” and (3) Ande rson’ s a lle ge d lim ite d m obility
. 1. The ALJ e xpla ine d tha t Ande rson’ s te s tim ony

re ga rding his se ve re pa in wa s not c re dible be c a use “ in [Ande rson’ s ] tre atm e nt note s with [Nurse ] B ushne ll he fre que ntly de sc ribe s his pa in a s c ontrolle d on Pe rc oc e t , a nd note s he
use s an e lliptic a l, a s we ll a s wa l ks.” The se re a sons for disc re diting Anderson’ s pa in te stim o ny

are ne i the r c le a

r nor c onvinc ing. Although Nurse B ushne ll’ s tre atm e n t re c ords did note tha t Ande rson’ s pa in wa s e a se d whe n he wa s on Pe rc oc e t , the fa c t tha

t Pe rc oc e t e a se s som e of Ande rson’ s pa in doe s not disc ount that he is inde e d in se rious pa in. In fa c t, tre atm e nt re c ords indic ate he c onsiste ntly
c om pla i ne d of pa i n during his visits, som e tim e s quitesignific ant pa in, de spite the Pe rc oc e t . Nurse B ushne ll, for e xam ple , re porte d tha

t Ande rson ha d “ se ve re psoria sis” and pa i n at ne arly e ve ry visit over the c ourse of se ve ra l y e ars. Thus,
e vide nc e tha

t Ande rson’ s pa in c ould, a t tim e s, be m ana ge d or re duc e d is not inc o nsiste nt with Anderson’ s de sc riptions of e xtre m e pa in. Nor is a singlem e dic a l re c ord noting Anderson’ s oc c a s iona l use of the
e lliptic a l inc onsiste n t

with Ande rson’ s sta

te m e nts a bout pa in, a s Ande rson doe s not
a sse rt tha t he is in e x tre m e pa in e ve ry m inute of e ve ry

da y suc h tha t he c an ne v e r be a c tive
. And, c o ntra

ry to the ALJ’ s de te rm ination, Ande rson’ s tre atm e n t re c ords
3supporte d Ande rson’ s te stim ony re ga rding his lim

ita tions in move m e nt. Nurse B ushne ll note d tha

t Ande rson ha s “

joint issue s, diffic u lty

wa lking, m ove m e nt,
we ight be aring.” Dr. M e inha rdt sim ila rly note d tha t Ande rson ha d diffic ulty sta nding a nd c lim b ing onto the

e xam ta ble due to ge n e ra liz e d

joint pain, tha

t Ande rson m a de “ a ll of his mane uve rs quite slowly ,” and tha t Ande rson ha d diffic u lty la y ing down supine and sitting bac k up due to low ba c k

pa in. The se obse rvations in tre atm e nt note s a re c onsiste nt a c ross m

u ltipley e ars. Thus, theALJ
e rre d in disc re diting Anderson’ s te stim o ny on his lim

ita tions in move m e n t. 2. The ALJ’ s e xpla

nation tha t Ande rson’ s “ a l le ge d diffic ulty using his ha nds is not fully

c re dible ” be c a

use “ he did not ha

ve de m onstra

te d diffic ulty

with
m anipula tive a c tivitie s during there c ord” is a lso insuffic ie nt: it is im pe rm issibly
va gue be c a

use it doe s not “ link tha

t te s tim o ny

to the pa rtic u la r parts of the re c ord supporting [the ] non-c re d i bility de te rm ination.” Brow n -Hunte r , 806 F.3d a t 494;
se e a lso Tonape t

y an v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1147–48 (9th C i r. 2001) (e xpla ining that the ALJ m a

y not “ re je c t the c la i m ant’ s sta

te m e n ts re ga

rding [his] lim ita

tions
m e re ly be c a u se the y a re not supporte d by

obje c tive e vide nc e ” ). It is a lso not supporte d by the re c ord, a s m ultipleof Ande rson’ s tre atm e nt re c ords note d Ande rson’ s a

rthritic ha nds a nd ha nd-re late d joint pain.

43. The ALJ’ s sta te d re a soning for disc re diting Anderson’ s te stim ony tha t he ha d diffic ulty

wa lking wa s a lso not c le ar and c onvinc ing. TheALJ e xpla ine d that Ande rson’ s te stim o ny

wa s c ontra dic te d by

Nurse B ushne ll’ s note s tha t Ande rson ha d a

n “ ove ra l l norm a l ga i t during e xam inations” and “ [Ande rson’ s]
re porte d a bility to wa lk a nd use an e l liptic a l.” This is not a suffic ie n t re a son. Although Nurse B ushne ll’ s note s do sta te tha t Ande rson ha d use d a

n e lliptic a l a

nd ha d a n “ ove ra ll norm a l ” ga it, thefa c t tha t Ande rson is a

ble to wa lk or e xe rc ise
oc c a siona lly

is not “ inc onsiste nt with the pa in-re l ate d im

pa irm e nts tha

t [Ande rson] de sc ribe d in [his] te s tim ony .” Garrison v . C o lv i n , 759 F.3d 995, 1016 (9th C ir. 2014). “ W e have re pe ate d ly wa rne d tha t ALJs m ust be e s pe c ia lly

c a utious in
c onc luding tha

t da ily a c tivitie s a

re inc onsiste nt with [a

c la i m ant’ s ] te stim o ny

. . . be c a use im pa irm e nts tha

t would unque stiona

bly pre c lude work a

nd a ll the pre s sure s of a

workpla c e e nvironm e nt will often be c onsiste nt with doing m ore tha n m e re ly re sting in be d a ll da

y .” Id. ; se e also Tre v i

zo v . Be rry h ill , 871 F.3d. 664, 679 (9th C ir. 2017) (noting tha t c la im ant with mobility

issue s be c a

use of psoria tic pla que s on he r fe e t ha d a norm a l ga it). Furthe r, a s e xpla i ne d a bove , the tre atm e n t note s of Nurse B ushne ll, Dr. M e inha rdt, a nd othe rs in fa c t support Ande rson’ s a sse rtion tha

t he ha d diffic ulty

m oving a nd wa lking dueto joint pa in. Ac c ordingly , the m e re fa c t tha t Ande rson c ould a c c o m

plish a fe w phy sic a l ta sks
5som e of the tim e is not suffic ie nt to disc re dit Ande rson’ s te stim ony tha t he ha d diffic u lty wa lking.

• ! • None of the ALJ’ s ide ntifie d re a sons for disc re d iting portions of Ande rson’ s te stim ony is c l e ar and c onvinc ing, a nd the re m a inde r of the ALJ’ s disc ussion of Ande rson’ s te stim ony

re late d to “unspe c ifie d c onflic t[s] be twe e n C la im ant’ s te stim ony ,” and m e re ly

“ sum m ariz e d the m e dic a l e vide nc e supporting her [re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity ] de te rm inat ion.” Brow n-Hunte r , 806 F.3d a t 494 (quota

tion

6m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d). The ALJ the re fore c om m itte d le ga l e rror in disc re diting Anderson’ s te stim o ny . 1 This e rror wa s not ha

rm le ss. Ha d Ande rson’ s te stim o ny re ga rding his lim ita tions be e n c re dite d, the ALJ sure ly c ould not ha v e c onc lude d tha

t Ande rson
wa s c a pa b le of pe rform ing m ost form s of light work— whic h inc lude s jobs tha

t

“ re quire [] a

good de a l of wa lking or sta nding,” 20 C .F.R . § 404.1567(b). Further,

1 The ALJ a lso sugge ste d tha t Ande rson’ s a lle gations re ga rding the e xte nt of his psoria s is we re not c re dible , c iting to tre at m e nts re c ords indic ating Ande rson’ s sta

bility on Enbre l a

nd the fa c t tha

t “ t he re is no e v ide nc e of suspic ious le sions in the

re c ord.” The se re a sons a re not c le ar an d

c onvinc ing. Thetre atm e nt re c o rds c onsiste ntly

indic ate d tha t Ande rson ha d signific a

n t sc a ling a

re a s of psoria sis. The se sc a ling a re a s fre que ntly

c ove re d la

rge portions of his body , we re pa inful, a nd would ble e d. Furthe r, the tre atm e n t re c ords c onsiste ntly indic ate d tha t a lthough Anderson took Enbre l , it wa s not a s e ffe c tive a s hope d for and ofte n re sulte d in intolera

ble side e ffe c ts. La stly , “ suspic ious le sions” like l y re fe rre d to c anc e rous le sions ( e .g. , m e la nom a or othe r pote n tia l skin c an c e r), whic h ha s no be aring on whe the r or not Ande rson ha s e xte nsive psoria tic le sions. M ore ove r, the ALJ m a de no e ffort to e xpla i n why m a ny of the othe r lim ita tions c la im e d

by Ande rson we re not c re dible . In pa rtic u la r, Ande rson te stifie d a nd de sc ribe d in his writte n sta te m e nt a t gre at le ngth tha

t his da ily life and a c tivitie s a

re lim ite d by

e x te nsive and re gula

r ble e ding c a

use d by his psoria s is. The ALJ m a d e no a

tte m pt to a ddre ss the se lim ita

tions or to e xpla in why

the y should not be

c re dite d. Ande rson a l so te stifie d tha t he fre que ntly

be c am e sic k be c a use the m e dic ine s he use d to c ontrol his psoria tic arthritis suppre sse d his im m une sy ste m , a

nd tha t he wa s ofte n se v e re ly

fatigue d a fte r taking c are of da ily ta sks likeshowe ring or spe nding a n a fte rnoon with his son. The ALJ like wise provide d no ba sis not to c re d it this te stim ony . Thus, the se c la im e d lim ita tions should ha ve be e n a c c ounte d for whe n de te rm ining Ande rson’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity
. Se e

, e . g. , Tre v izo , 871 F.3d a t 678 n.6; Burre ll v . C

olv in , 775 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th C ir. 2014). 7if Ande rson’ s te s tim ony ha d be e n c re d ite d, the ALJ would ha ve ha d to de te rm ine that Ande rson would ha

ve ha d to ta

ke m uc h m ore e xte nsive bre aks during the
c ourse of the workda

y , and would ha

ve m isse d a substa

ntia l num be r of workda

y s during a m onth on a c c o unt of his pain a nd ble e ding. Ac c o rdingly , we re ve rse . a nd
re m and. 2 RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D with instruc t ions for thedistric t c ourt furthe r to re m and this c a se to the C om m issione r to a llow furthe r de ve lopm e nt of the re c ord by

Ande rson re ga

rding his sy

m ptom s a nd limita tions, a nd for
re c o nside ration of there c ord e v ide nc e in light of this disposition.

2 B e c a

use the ALJ’ s e rrone ous disc re diting of Anderson’ s te stim ony a lone wa rrants re ve rsa l, we ne e d not a nd do not re a c h

Ande rson’ s othe r a

rgum e nts.
8