T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ST ACEY D. CASE ,

P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v . M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C om m i s s i one rof S o ci al S ecu ri ty,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e lle e . N o. 10- 35307 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 0 8 3 - J PH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J a m e s P . H utt on, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 9, 2011 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: M cK E O W N , F IS H E R an d G O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S t a c e y C a s e appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nta f f i rm i ng the A d m i n i strat i v e L aw Ju d g e’ s (A L J) d et erm i n at i o n th atC ase w as n o td i sab l ed . C ase a r gue s tha tthe A L J ’ s de c i s i on s houl d be r e ve r s e d be c a us e i tdi d notc ont a i n the re q u isit e “sp ec ific, l eg it im ate r ea so n s” fo r r ejec ti n g h ertrea ti n g rh eu m ato lo g ist’ s o p in io n s ab o u t h e rr e s id u a l f u n c tio n a l c ap a c ity ( R F C ) . Morga n v. C om m ’rof So c. 

# FI LED MA R 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

Se c . A dm i n. , 169 F . 3d 595, 600 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A l though the A L J pr ope r l y“ s e t [ ] outade t a i l e d a nd thor ough sum m ary of the fa ct s a nd confl i ct i ng cl i ni ca l evi dence, ” i d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) , w e c onc l ude tha ts e ve r a l of the A L J ’ s r e a s ons f

or d is c o u n tin g th e tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’s R F C w e r e im p r o p e r . T he A L J e rr ed by di sc ou nt i ng the tre at i ng ph ys i ci an’ s R F C because i tw as com pl et ed “ for obv i ou s l i t i gi ou s purpo se s. ” “ T he pu rpose f or w hi ch m edi ca l rep o rt s are o b t ai n ed d o es n o tp ro v i d e a l eg i t i m at e b asi s fo r rej ect i n g th em ” u n l ess the r e i s a ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t i ng i m pr opr i e ty , a nd the A L J i de nt i f i e d no s u c h e v id e n c e . L es terv. Cha ter , 8 1 F .3 d 8 2 1 , 8 3 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ; see a l so R eddi ck v. Cha ter , 15 7 F . 3d 71 5, 72 6 (9th C i r. 19 98 ). A l tho ug h thi s e rr or, s t a ndi ng a l one , m i ghtnotha ve r e qui r e d r e ve r s a l , the A L J a l s o e rr e d by a s s um i ng th a t C a s e ’s s h o u ld e rim p a irm e n t s h o u ld b e d is r e g a r d e d b e c a u s e it w a s o n ly re ce nt l y di agno se d. T he A L J m ustconsi der i m pai rm ent s e ven i f they w er e d ia g n o s e d a f

te rth e a lle g e d d a te o f

d is ab ility o n s e t. See Carm i ckle v . C om m ’r , So c. Se c . A dm i n. , 533 F . 3d 1155, 1164 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng tha tthe A L J e rr e d by r e j e c t i ng l i m i t a t i ons be c a us e the y w e r e ba s e d on a“ r e c e nt ” di a gnos i s of a“ nonse vere ” i m pai rm ent ). T h e A L J a ls o n o te d th a t C a s e ’s s h o u ld e rin ju ry w a s tr e a te d c o n s e rv a tiv e ly . A l though w e ha ve he l d tha tc ons e rva t i ve tr e a tm e ntof a l l e ge dl y di s abl i ng3

c o n d itio n s m a y u n d e rm in e af in d in g o f d is ab ility , s e e J

o h n s o n v . Sh a la la , 60 F . 3d 1428, 1433 ( 9th C i r . 1995) , it is u n c le a rw h e th e ro rto w h a t e x te n t th is f a c to r e d in to th e A L J ’s d e c is io n . I n a ny e ve nt , e ve n i f

the c ons e rva t i ve tr e a tm e ntof the s houl de ri m pa i rm e nt sugg es t s thatthi s part i cul ari nj ury i s notse vere , “ [t ] he A L J i s r equi re d t o con si der al l of the l i m i t at i on s i m po se d b y the cl ai m ant ’ s i m pai rm ent s, even tho se thatar e no tse vere , ” bec ause i n com bi nat i on w i th o ther i m pai rm ent s, no n-se vere lim ita tio n s m a y c o n tr ib u te to r e n d e r in g ac la im a n t d is ab le d . C a rm ic kle , 533 F . 3d a t1164. N ot abl y , i n the f i r s ta nd s e c ond hypothe t i c a l R F C s tha tthe A L J a s ke d the v o c a tio n a l e x p e r t ( V E ) to c o n s id e r , th e A L J in c lu d e d n o lim ita tio n s o n th e ab ility t o pus h a nd pul l w i th the uppe re xtr e m i t i e s , a nd the V E t e s t i f i e d tha tj obs w oul d be a v a ilab le . B y c o n tr a s t, th e V E te s tif ie d th a t th e r e w o u ld b e n o w o rk a v a ilab le u n d er th e th i rd h yp o th et i cal , w h ere th e A L J h ad i n tro d u ced ad d i t i o n al i m p ai rm en t s, i nc l udi ng l i m i t a t i ons t o the uppe re xtr e m i t i e s c ons i s t e ntw i th D r . B ut l e r ’ s opi ni ons aboutC a s e ’ s s houl de ri m pa i rm e nt . A l though thi s c onc l us i on m a y ha ve be e n due t o l i m i t at i on s other than the shou l der i m pai rm ent , because i ti s uncl ea r on app ea l w h ic h lim ita tio n s m a d e th e d if f e r e n c e , w e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e th e e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s . RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.