N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALEXIA M . C OLTER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 15-15744 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01294-B SB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na B ridge t S. B a de , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h 16, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd GUIR OLA, ** C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
MAR 29 2017 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. ** The Honora

ble Louis Guirola , Jr., C h ie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of M ississippi, sitting by de signa tion.Ale xia M . C olte r a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing thede nia l of he r a pplic ation for Disa

bility Insura

nc e B e ne fits (DIB ) unde r Title II of the Soc i a l Se c urity Ac t a nd he r a p plic ation for Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc om e (SSI) unde r Title XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s de c ision denovo a nd the a d m inistra tive la w judge ’ s (ALJ) de c ision for substa ntia l e v ide nc e . Garrison v

. C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1009-10 (9th C ir. 2014). W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a nd re m and to the C om m issione r for furthe r proc e e dings. The ALJ did not provide

spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons to support he r finding tha

t C olte r’ s da ily

a c tivitie s we re inc onsiste nt with C olte r’ s c om pla ints of pa in a nd fat igue
. Se e Burre ll v . C olv in , 775 F.3d 1133, 1136-38 (9th C ir. 2014). In re j e c ting C olte r’ s c om

pla ints, theALJ c ite d da ily a c tivitie s tha t would ha

ve
oc c upie d only

a sm a ll portion of C olte r’ s da y . The ALJ did not spe c i fic a lly find that C olte r would ha

ve be e n c a

pa ble of pe rform ing thosea c tivitie s for a substa ntia l portion of theda

y or tha t thosea c tivitie s c o uld be tra nsfe rre d to a

work se tting. Se e M organ v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th C ir. 1999). The ALJ did not provide

spe c ific , le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e for a ssigning re duc e d we ight to the m e dic a l opinion of C olte r’ s ne urologist, Dr. Nirma la Ary a l. S e e Bray v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 2554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th C ir. 2009). TheALJ disc re dite d Dr. Ary a l’ s opinion tha t C olte r’ s he a da c he s pre ve nte d e m ploy m e nt, be c a

use C olte r ha d e xpe rie nc e d pe riods of im prove m e nt. The ALJ fa ile d to a na ly z e the pe riods of im

prove m e nt in the
c onte xt of C olte r’ s tre atm e nt history to e n s ure tha t the im prove m e nt wa s not te m pora ry . Se eGhanim v . C

o lv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1164 (9th C ir. 2014) (e xpla ining that tre atm e nt re c o rds re fle c ting im prove m e nt “ m

ust be vie we d in light of the
ove ra l l dia gnostic re c ord” ). The ALJ a l so re fe re nc e d C olte r’ s m otor stre ngth a nd he r a bility to wa lk on he r he e ls a

nd toe s a nd pe rform

ta nde m wa lking, but the

ALJ fa ile d to e xpla in how the se findings disprove d the se ve rity or fre que n c y of C olte r’ s he a da c h e s. Furthe rm ore , the ALJ’ s a sse rtion tha t Dr. Ary a l ’ s opinion may be
a ffe c te d by

sy m pathy or a de sire to a

void te nsion is spe c ulative an d unsupporte d. Se eLeste r , 81 F.3d a

t 832; se e also Pay ton v . C olv in , 632 F. App’ x 326, 327 (9th C ir. 2015). The ALJ did not provide

spe c ific , le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e for a ssigning re duc e d we ight to the m e dic a l opinion of C olte r’ s rhe um atologist, Dr. M ic ha e l Fa irfa x . The ALJ found, without furthe r
e xpla nation, tha

t othe r, unspe c ifie d e vide nc e in there c ord wa s inc onsiste nt with Dr. Fa i rfa x’ s findings. The ALJ a lso re lie d on a

ve ry lim ite d disc ussion of C olte r’ s da ily a c tivitie s to support re

j e c ting Dr. Fa irfa x’ s opinion. The ALJ e rre d by : (1)
3fa iling to identify the spe c ific e vide nc e that c o ntra dic t e d Dr. Fa irfa x’ s opinion, a nd (2) fa iling to a sse s s whe t

he r C olte r c ould pe rform

he r da ily a c tivitie s for a substa ntia l pa rt of the da

y in a work e nvironm e nt. Se eGarrison , 759 F.3d a t 1012 (“ The ALJ m

ust do m ore tha

n s tate c onc l usions. Hem ust se t forth his own inte rpre tations a

nd e xpla in why

the y , rathe r tha

n the doc tors’ , a

re c orre c t .” (quota tion omi tte d)); Morgan , 169 F.3d a t 600 (“ If a

c la im a nt is a b le to spe nd a substa ntia l pa rt of his da

y e nga ge d in pursuits involving the pe rform an c e of phy sic a l func tions tha

t a re tra nsfe ra ble to a work se tting, a

spe c ific finding a s to this fa c t m ay

be suffic ie nt to disc re dit a c l a im ant’ s a lle g ations.” ). De spite the ALJ’ s e rrone ous findings, the re c ord a s a

whole ra ise s doubts a s to whe the r C olte r is disa

ble d within the

m e aning of theSoc ia l Se c urity Ac t. Se e Tre ic hle r v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th C ir. 2014). The re fore , we re m and to thedistric t c ourt with instructions to re m and to the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity for furthe r proc e e d ings. Appe lle e sha ll be a

r a ll c osts of a

p pe a l. S e eFe d. R . App. P. 39(a)(3). RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

4