N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SHAR ON K. B UR T, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35618 D.C . No. 4:13-c v-00031-HR H
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 H . R usse l Holla

nd, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 14, 2015 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : C ANB Y, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Sharon B urt a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r re ve rsing a nd re m anding for furthe r proc e e dings thefina l de c ision of theC om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , c onc luding tha

t B urt wa s not e ntitle d to Disa bility Insura nc e B e ne fits unde r Title II 

# F IL ED
MAY19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita b le for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t, 42 U.S.C . §§ 401-434. Although B urt pre va ile d be fore the d istric t c o urt, she m ay a p p e a l the de c ision be c a

use it did not gra

n t the full
m e a sure of re lie f she sought, whic h wa s a n orde r re m anding for a

n a ward of disa bility be ne fits. Tre ic hle r v . C

omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th C ir. 2014). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and to the C om m issione r. Harman v . Apfe l , 211 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th C ir. 2000). W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion, howe ve r, the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to re m and for furthe r proc e e dings ra

the r tha n for a n im m e diate award of be ne fits. Id. at 1173. W e a ffirm

the orde r of the distric t c ourt. I As the distric t c ourt prope rly he ld, the ALJ e rre d in fa iling to identify spe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons for giving no proba tive we ight to the

opinion of Dr. Jil Dia ne B ottre l l, Ph.D., a

n e xam ining psy c hologist. Vale ntine v . C omm’r, Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 692 (9th C ir. 2009); Uk olov v . Barnhart , 420 F.3d 1002, 1005-06 (9th C ir. 2005). She opine d tha t B urt ha d sy m ptom s of de pre ssion,
anxie ty , ange r a

n d othe r m e nta l lim ita

t ions. C ontra

ry to the ALJ’ s c onc lusion, Dr. B ottre ll’ s opinion wa s not ba se d sole ly on B urt’ s se lf re p ort, but re l ie d a s we ll on 2Dr. B ottre ll’ s own e xam ination, obse rva t ion, a nd te sting. Additiona

l ly , Dr. B ottre ll’ s opinion wa s supporte d by the late r opinion of Dr. C lifford C ra fton, M .D., Ph.D., who a l so dia g nose d B urt with se ve ra l m e nta l lim ita tions a n d whose opinion
wa s be fore the Appe a ls C o unc i l. Like those of Dr. B o ttre ll, Dr. C ra fton’ s dia g nose s we re ba se d on his own obse rva tions a nd m e nta l sta

tus e xam ination. The ALJ’ s e rror wa s not ha

rm le ss be c a

use Dr. B ottre l l’ s opinion c o uld ha ve form e d the ba sis of a disa b ility de te rm ination. Tre ic hle r , 775 F.3d a t 1099. W ith re ga rd to the re m a ining findings of the ALJ, the distric t c ourt prope rly found no e rror. C ontra

ry to B urt’ s c onte ntion, theALJ did not fail to ta ke into
a c c ount B urt’ s a lle ge d right-e y e blindne ss whe n m aking the disa bility a sse s sm e n t. The e vide nc e did not show tha t B urt’ s visua l im

pa i rm e n ts c a

use d func t iona l lim ita tions or pre ve nte d

he r from pe rform ing he r pa st re le va nt work. Smole n v . C hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th C ir. 1996). The ALJ a lso did not err in finding B urt’ s own sta te m e nts a bout he r phy sic a l
and m e nta l im

p a irm e nts a

n d lim ita tions not c re dible be c a

use the ALJ provide d spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons for re je c ting B urt’ s te stim ony . Id. at 1281;
se e a lso Holohan v
. Massanari , 246 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th C ir. 2001) (the ALJ m ust

“ spe c ific a lly

ide n t ify the te stim ony

[from a c la im a n t ] she or he finds not to be
c re d ible a nd . . . e xpla in wha

t e vide nc e unde rm ine s the te s tim o ny ” ). First, the ALJ

3found tha

t B urt’ s sta

te m e nts we re not c re dible in light of the c onse rva tive nature of he r tre a tm e nt history

and he r non-c om

plia nc e with thetre atm e nt pre sc riptions. Parra v . Astrue , 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ [E] vide nc e of ‘ c onse rva tive tre a tm e n t’ is suffic ie nt to disc ount a c la im ant’ s te stim ony

re ga rding se v e rity

of a n im pa irm e nt.” (quoting J

ohnson v . Shalala , 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th C ir.1995)); Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ The ALJ m ay c onside r . . . in we ighing a c la im ant’ s c re dibility

. . . une xpla i ne d or ina de quate ly
e xpla ine d fa ilure to se e k tre a tm e nt or to follow a pre sc ribe d c ourse of tre a tm e nt[.] ” (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d)). Se c ond, the ALJ prope rly disc re dite d B urt’ s te stim ony a bout he r m e nta l a

n d phy sic a l im

pa irm e nts be c a

use the y we re inc o nsiste nt with he r own te stim ony an d he r re porte d

da ily a c tivitie s. S

mole n , 80 F.3d at 1284. And third, the ALJ prope rly

disc re dite d B urt’ s te stim ony be c a use it
wa s c ontra dic te d by

the m e dic a l re c ord. C

armic k lev . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th C ir. 2008). (“ C ontra d ic tion with the m e dic a l re c o rd is a suffic i e nt ba sis for re

je c ting thec la im ant’ s subje c tive te stim o ny .” ).

4I I

The distric t c ourt found tha t “ re m and for furthe r proc e e dings is a ppropria te so the A LJ c an c onside r what im pa c t [B urt’ s] m e nta l im

p a irm e nts a

nd the lim i tations flowing from the m

have on he r a

bility ‘ to e n ga ge in a

ny substa ntia l ga i nful a c tivity . . . .’ ” The “ ordina

ry re m and rule ,” Gonzale

s v . Thomas , 547 U.S. 183, 185 (2006) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d), a

pplie s “ e qua lly to Soc ia l Se c urity c a se s,” Tre ic hle r , 775 F.3d a

t 1099. Unde r this rule , this C ourt will re m and for a n a ward of be ne fits (rathe r tha

n for furthe r proc e e d ings) only in “ ra re c irc um s ta

nc e s, whe re no use ful purpose would be se rve d by furthe r a d m inistra t ive proc e e dings a

nd the
re c o rd ha s be e n thoroughly de ve lope d.” Id. a t 1100 (inte rna l c ita tions a nd quota t ion m arks om itte d). “ W h e re the re is c onflic ting e v ide nc e , a nd not a ll
e sse ntia l fa c tua l issue s ha ve be e n re solve d, a

re m and for a

n a ward of be ne fits is ina p propria te .” Id. at 1101. In he r R e ply

B rie f, B urt c onc e de s tha

t she c annot de m onstra

te tha t a re m and for an award of be ne fits is a

ppropria te he re . Inde e d , the re are m any fa c tua l
c onflic ts in there c ord. The ALJ e rre d in re j e c ting Dr. B ottre ll’ s opinion a bout B urt’ s m e nta l im

pa irm e nts; ha d the ALJ prope rly c re dite d tha t opinion, there would be signific ant c onflic ts a m ong the te stim ony and opinions of the se ve ra l
m e dic a l e xpe rts. The re c ord ra ise s c ruc i a l que stions a bout the e xte nt of B urt’ s 5m e nta l im

pa irm e nts a

nd he r a bility to pe rform

he r pa st re le v an t work in light of those lim ita

tions. The se fa c tua l disc re pa nc ie s are “ e xa c tly

the sort of issue s tha

t should bere m ande d to the a ge n c y for furthe r proc e e dings.” Id. a t 1105. This is not a c a se whe re the re are “ n o outsta nding issue s tha

t m ust be re s olve d be fore a prope r disa

bility de te rm ination c an be m a de , a nd whe re it is c l e ar from

the
a dm inistra

tive re c ord tha

t the ALJ would bere quire d to a ward be ne fits if the
c la im ant’ s . . . te s tim ony

we re c re dite d.” Varne

y v . Se c ’yof He alth & Human Se rv s. , 859 F.2d 1396, 1401 (9th C ir. 1988). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not
a buse i ts disc re tion in re m an ding for furthe r proc e e dings. AFFIRM E D.

6