N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LEW IS POTTER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF SOC IAL SEC UR ITY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-35362 D.C . No. 6:10-c v-01527-SI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 3, 2014 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TR OTT a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s, a nd B LOC K, Se nior Distric t Judge
. ** 

# FIL ED APR 25 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Fre de ric B loc k, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Le wis Potte r a p p e a ls a judgm e nt a ffirm ing the de nia l of his a pplic ation for disa bility insura nc e be n e fits. W e a ssum e fam ilia rity with thefa c ts of the c a se and the i ssue s on a

p pe a l
. The a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) found tha t Potte r suffe re d from

a se ve re im pa irm e n t: c ostoc hondritis (a n infla m m ation of thec artila g e be twe e n the ribs). He furthe r found, howe ve r, tha t Potte r wa s not disa

ble d be c a u se he ha d the re sidua l func t iona l c a

pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) to pe rform “ l ight e xe rtiona l work e xc e pt [he ] c an lift a nd c arry up to 10 pounds oc c a siona lly and fre q ue ntly with theright uppe r e xtre m i ty and up to 20 pounds oc c a siona lly and fre que ntly

with thele ft uppe r e xtre m i ty ,” an d

c ould, with tha

t R FC , pe rform

jobs e xisting in signific ant num be rs in the nationa l e c onom

y . In de te rm i ning Potte r’ s R FC , the ALJ c re dite d

the a sse ssm e nt of Dr. Joseph Je nse n, who te s tifie d a s a m e dic a l e xpe rt, ove r those of Dr. He athe r Kahn, Potte r’ s tre a ting phy sic i a

n, Dr. Gre gory

Grunwa ld, a

c onsulta tive e xam ining phy sic ia

n, a nd Dr. Sc o tt Pritc ha

rd, a c onsulta tive non-e xam ining phy sic ia n. His sta te d re a son for doing so wa s tha

t Dr. Je nse n’ s opinion wa s “ we l l supporte d by m e d ic a lly a c c e pta b le c linic a l a

nd la boratory dia gnostic te c hnique s,” while those of the othe r phy sic ia ns we re not.

2To the e xte nt tha t the ALJ disc re d ite d

the opinions of Drs. Ka

hn, Grunwa l d, and Pritc ha

rd ba se d on a

la c k of obje c tive e v ide nc e of the se ve rity of Potte r’ s pa in, this wa s e rror N

oneof the phy sic ia

ns’ R FC a sse ssm e nts wa s supporte d by obje c tive e v ide nc e be c a

u se , a s the C om

m issione r’ s own re gula

tions re c ogniz e , pa in is “ subje c tive and diffic ult to qua ntify .” 20 C .F.R . § 404.1529(c )(3). In Be ne c k e v . Barnhart , 379 F.3d 587 (9th C ir. 2004), we he ld tha t a n ALJ c annot re quire obje c tive e vide nc e “ for a dise a se tha

t e lude s suc h m e a sure m e nt.” Id. at 594 (quoting Gre e n-Younge r v . Barnhart , 335 F.3d 99, 108 (2d C ir. 2003)). Although the d ise a s e a t issue in Be ne c k e wa s fibrom

y a l gia , the disa

b ling sy m ptom

— p a in— is the s am e . B e c a use the disa

bling e ffe c t of pa i n c annot be c onfirm e d by obje c tive
m e dic a l e vide nc e , Potte r’ s R FC de pe nds on his subje c tive c o m pla ints. Eva luating subje c tive c om

pla ints of pa in is a two-ste p proc e ss. “ First, the ALJ m ust de te rm i ne whe t

h e r the c la i m ant ha s pre se n te d obje c t ive m e dic a l e vide nc e of a n unde rly ing im

pa irm e n t ‘ w hic 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
. ’ ” Linge nfe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting

Bunne ll v . Sullivan , 947 F.2d 341, 344 (9th C ir. 1991) (e n ba nc )). At the se c ond step, the ALJ m ust a sse ss the c re dibility

of the c la im ant’ s subje c tive c om pla i nts; a ppropria te c onside ra tions inc lude

3(1) ordina ry te c hnique s of c re dibility

e va luation, suc h a s the c la im ant’ s re puta

tion for ly ing, prior inc onsiste nt sta t e m e nts c onc e rning the sy

m ptom s, a nd othe r te stim ony

by the c l a im ant tha

t a ppe ars le s s tha

n c andid; (2) une xpla ine d or ina de quate l y 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 atm e n t; and (3) the c l a im ant’ s da ily a c tivitie s. Smole n v . C

hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th C ir. 1996). “ [If] the re is no e vide nc e of
m a linge ring, ‘ the ALJ c an re j e c t the c la im a

n t’ s te stim ony

a b out the se ve rity

of he r sym ptom s only

by offe ring spe c ific , c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for doing so.’ ” Linge n fe lte r , 504 F.3d a

t 1036 (quoting Smole n , 80 F.3d a t 1281). It is undispute d tha

t c ostoc hondritis c an re a sona bly be e xpe c te d

to produc e pa in, a nd tha t Potte r’ s te stim ony

a bout his le ve l of pa in would, if be lie ve d, rule out any le ve l of work. Howe v e r, the ALJ re a sone d tha t Potte r’ s a c tivitie s “ inc luding pa inting a nd atte nding a boy

sc out c am

p with full phy sic ia

n c le aran c e . . . a

re inc o nsiste nt with a

disa bling le ve l of pa in.” Potte r’ s “ p a i nting” wa s, howe v e r, an atte mpt to pa int tha

t re sulte d in a

trip to thee m e rge nc y

room . R e ga

rding the boy sc out c am p, the ALJ offe re d no re a son for disbe l ie ving Potte r’ s te stim ony tha t he did not hike

and spe nt m o st of the trip re s ting in his te nt. The ALJ m a de re pe ate d re fe re nc e s to a ne rve -bloc k proc e d

ure tha t, a c c ording to Dr. Grunwald, would re store Potte r to “ 100% m obility .” Potte r te stifie d tha

t Dr. Ka hn ha d disc usse d the proc e dure with him , but tha t he wa s a fra id that it m ight worse n his c ondition or pre ve nt him from notic ing a

he art atta c k. 4Ac c ording to Potter, Dr. Ka hn did not make a re c om

m e ndation e ithe r for or a ga inst the p roc e dure
. As note d , “ une xpla i ne d or ina de q uate ly e xpla ine d

fa i lure to se e k tre atm e nt or to follow a

pre sc ribe d c ourse of tre atm e nt” is a n a ppropria t e c re d ibility c onside ra tion. Smole n , 80 F.3d a t 1284. Sinc e 2002, howe ve r, Potte r ha s sought num e rous tre a tm e nts for his pain. M ost did not work a t a ll, a nd those tha

t did— Vic odin a nd lidoc a ine patc he s
—

provide d only

som e re lie f. Potte r pa id for a t le a st a portion of the

lidoc a ine patc he s out of his own pock e t. Ne ve rthe le s s, we a

re trouble d by

Potte r’ s unwillingne ss to pursuethe one tre a tm e n t tha

t m ight c o m

ple te ly a lle viate his pa in. Proble m atic a lly , the ALJ did not c le arly tie Potte r’ s fa ilure to pursue the ne rve -bloc k proc e dure to his c re d ibility . W e c onc lude tha t the a ppropria te c ourse of a c tion in the c irc um sta nc e s is to re m and for a

re a sse ssm e nt of Potte r’ s c re dibility . On re m and, the ALJ should e xpla in the re lationship be twe e n Potte r’ s c re dibility and his re fusa l to pursue the ne rve -bloc k proc e dure . In tha t re ga rd, the ALJ should deve lop the re c ord re ga rding the nature of the proc e dure and its be ne fits a nd risks. Heshould a lso e va luate Potte r’ s c onc e rns a bout theproc e d

ure and give due c onside ra tion to the tre a tm e n ts Potte r ha s sought. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. VAC ATED AND R

EM ANDED. 5