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

L FAR NSW OR TH, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 21-35088 D.C . No. 1:20-c v-03083-M KD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington M ary K. Dim ke , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2022 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILER , ** S.R . THOM AS, an d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. David Fa rnsworth a

ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision a ffirm i ng the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of Fa rnsworth’ s a

pplic a tion for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc o m e unde r Title s II and XVI of the



# FIL ED MAR 8 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e re ve rse . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c tua l
and proc e dura l history

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing a n a d m inistra t ive la w judge ’ s (“ ALJ” ) de nia l of soc ia l se c urity be ne fits de novo, Hill v . Astrue , 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th C ir. 2012), a

nd re ve rse if the ALJ’ s de c i sion la c ks support from substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord or re lie s on the a pplic a tion of a

n inc orre c t le ga l sta nda rd, Gutie rre

z v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 740 F.3d 519, 522–23 (9th C ir. 2014).

“ Substa ntia l e vide nc e ” re fe rs to “ re le v ant e vide nc e [that] a re a sona ble m ind m ight
a c c e pt a s a de q

uate to support a

c onc l usion,” whic h e quat e s to “ m ore tha n a m e re sc intilla [,] but le ss tha

n a pre ponde ra

nc e .” Hill , 693 F.3d a

t 1159 (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). An ALJ m

ust e va luat e e ve ry

m e dic a l opinion in the re c ord. S e e 20 C .F.R
. § 404.1527(c ). Gre a te r we ight is ge ne ra lly give n to the opinions of tre a ting or
e xam ining phy sic ia

ns tha n to thoseof c o nsulting phy sic ia ns. Se e id. “ If a

tre a ting
or e xam ining doc t or’ s opinion is c ontra dic te d by anothe r doc tor’ s opinion, a n ALJ
m ay only re je c t it by providing spe c i fic and le g itim a te re a sons tha t a re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .” Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C i r. 2005).

2He re , the ALJ ga ve little we i ght to them e d ic a l opinions provide d by Farnsworth’ s tre a t ing phy s ic ia n , tre a ting psy c h ologist, a nd two e xam ining psy c hologists in fa

vor of a n opinion provide d by

a non-e x am ining c onsulting phy sic ia n who te stifie d at the he aring. The ALJ did not provide spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons for re

je c ting the opinions a s to how m uc h tim e Farnsworth would be off ta sk in a

work e nvironm e nt, a

nd substa ntia l e v ide nc e doe s not support theALJ’ s c onc lusion in this re ga rd. In re a c hing his c onc lusion a s to off-ta sk work, the ALJ re lie d on the te stim ony of the c onsulting phy sic ia n. Howe ve r, tre a ting psy c hologist Te a l opine d that Farnsworth would be

off ta sk 21-30% of thetim e and would miss 2 da y s of work a m onth. Tre a ting phy sic ia n M ille r stat e d tha

t Fa rnsworth would like ly

m iss 4 or m ore da

y s of work a

m onth. Exa

m ining psy c hologist W e iss opine d tha t Farnsworth would ha

ve “ se ve re ” diffic ulty m a inta ining a tte nda nc e or c om

ple ting a
norm a l workda

y . And e x a m ining psy c hologist M arks a sse sse d lim i tations sim ila r to those ide ntifie d by

W e iss. The signific anc e of the se opinions wa s de m onstra te d by the voc a tiona l
e xpe rt, who te s tifie d at the he aring tha t a 10% off-ta sk rate is “ kind of the c u toff point,” suc h tha

t som e one who is off ta sk 10% of the tim e or m o re “ is not like ly to
m a inta in e m

ploy m e nt” of any

kind— a nd, thus, would qua

l ify for be n e fits.
3The ALJ re j e c te d the se opinions by

sim ply sta ting tha t the c onsulting phy sic ia n disa g re e d with the m . In fa c t, the c onsulting phy s ic ia n sta te d tha t he
c ould not provide

a figure a s to the am ount of tim e Farnsworth would be off ta sk in
a work e nvironm e nt. Furthe r, while the ALJ e xplic i tly re fe re nc e d

and ga ve “ little we ight” to psy c hologist Te a l’ s proje c te d off-ta sk rate of “ 21-30%,” the ALJ provide d no spe c ific e xpla

nation for why

it c re dite d

this portion of the

c onsulting phy sic ia

n’ s opinion m ore strongly

tha n Te a l’ s, or for how m

uc h lowe r tha

n 21% it a s sum e d the off-ta sk rate to be . Only

by im plic a tion did the

ALJ de te rm ine tha

t Fa rnsworth’ s off-ta sk rate would be le ss tha n 10%. The re is no re c ord support for this
c onc lusion. At m ost, the e vide nc e on this issue is a m biguous, a

nd “ [a ] n ALJ’ s duty

to de ve lop the re c ord furthe r is trigge re d . . . whe n the re is a m biguous e vide nc e or whe n the re c ord is ina de quate to a l low for prope r e va luat ion of the e vide nc e .” May e s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 459

– 60 (9th C ir. 2001). In short, the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha t the off-ta sk rat e would be le ss tha n 10% is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , a

n d the ALJ e rre d in re

je c ting the
c ontra ry opinions of the tre a ting a nd e xam ining m e dic a l provide rs. B e c a u s e this
e rror wa s not ha

rm le ss, we m

ust re ve rse the judgm e n t

of the distric t c ourt a

nd
4re m and with instruc tions to further re m and this c a se to the C om m i ssione r for
re c o nside ra tion. W e e xpre ss no vie ws a s to a ny othe r issue urge d by

the pa rtie s.

RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

5