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

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15877 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01401-SR B 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 Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 11, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and REINHAR DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s . Da lla s L. C ox a

ppe a ls from

the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra tion’ s de nia l of he r a pplic a tion for supple m e nta l se c urity inc om e be ne fits. 1 The distric t c ourt gran te d sum

m a ry judgm e nt to thegove rnm e nt, a nd C ox a ppe a le d. W e have 

# FIL ED MAY04 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. 1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s, so we do not re c ount the m he re .jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt a nd re m a nd for an a w ard of be ne fits. C ox c onte nds the ALJ c om m itte d le ga l e rror whe n he fa ile d to inc orporate into his re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) a sse ssm e nt, a

nd c orre sponding hy pothe t ic a l que stion pose d to the voc a tiona l e xpe rt (“ VE” ), portions of two m e dic a l opinions to whic

h he gave substa

ntia l we ight. W e a gre e tha t this wa s e rror. “ The hy

pothe tic a l a

n ALJ pose s to a

voc a tiona l e xpe rt, whic h de rive s from the R FC , ‘ m ust se t out all the lim ita

tions a n d re stric tions of thepa

rtic u la r c la im ant.’ ” Vale ntine v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th C ir. 2009). In de te rm ining thec la im ant’ s lim ita t ions, “ [t] he ALJ m

ust c onside r a ll m e dic a l opinion e vide nc e .” Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008); 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(b). If, a fte r c onside ra tion, theALJ re j e c ts a n e xam ining phy sic ia

n’ s opinion, he

or she m ust give spe c ific and le g itim a te re a sons for doing so. Leste r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th C ir. 1995). In a s se ssing the c la i m ant’ s R

FC , a n ALJ m ay

not pic k a

nd c hoose e vide nc e unfavora ble to the c la im ant while ignoring e v ide nc e fa vora ble to the c l a im ant. Se e Ghanim v . C olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1164 (9th C ir. 2014). He re , e xam ining doc tors B e nc om o and Finc h opine d tha t C ox re ta ine d som e a bility to re m e m

be r and pe rform

sim ple ta s ks, but tha

t he r m e nta l illne s se s would 2m ake it diffic ult for he r to ge t a long with c oworke rs a nd supe rvisors, c om

ple te ta sks on a sc he d ule , c om ple te a workwe e k without inte

rruptions from psy c hologic a lly -ba se d sy

m p tom s, a n d ta ke c ritic ism . The ALJ ga ve signific ant we ight to e a c h doc tor’ s opinion, but he inc o rpora te d into his R

FC and hy

pothe tic a l to the VE only those pa

rts of Dr. B e nc om o’ s a

nd Dr. Finc h ’ s opinions m ost fa vora ble to a finding of no-disa

bility . The VE te stifie d in re sponse to the ALJ’ s prim ary hy p othe tic a l tha

t som e one with thesta

t e d R FC c ould work, a

nd the ALJ ba se d his “ finding of ‘ n ot disa ble d’ ” on this te stim ony . The ALJ did not provide any re a sons— le t a lone spe c ific and le gitim a te one s— for disc ounting a ny portions of Dr. B e nc om o’ s a

nd Dr. Finc h’ s opinions. This fa ilure c onstitute d le ga l e rror, se e G hanim , 763 F.3d a

t 1163 n.8 (ALJ like ly

e rre d by re

je c t ing “ c e rta in fa

vora ble opinions of the

e xam ining phy sic ia

ns” without providing “ spe c ific and le gitim a te re a s ons” for doing so), a

nd re ve rsa l is the re fore wa rrante d. W e like wise a gre e with C ox tha t re m and for a

n a ward of be ne fits is a ppropria te he re . W e a c c e pt the ALJ’ s c onc l usion tha t Dr. B e nc om o’ s a

nd Dr. Finc h’ s opinions a

re due signific an t we ight. The VE te stifie d on c ross e xam inat ion that som e one with a ll of the m e nta l lim ita tions ide ntifie d by Dr. B e n c om o a nd Dr. Finc h would be una

ble to work. The VE’ s te stim o ny e s ta blishe s tha

t C ox is disa ble d within the

m e aning of theAc t. Se e Be ne c k e v . Barnhart , 379 F.3d 587, 3595 (9th C i r. 2004) (re m an d for an a w ard of be ne fits is a

ppropria te whe n the voc a tiona l e xpe rt te stifie s tha t som e one with c l a im ant’ s pre c ise lim ita tions c annot work). W e the re fore re ve rse the judgm e n t of the distric t c ourt with instruc tions to re m and to theALJ for the c a lc ulation a nd a ward of be ne fits. B e c a use we de e m this issue

dispositive

of C ox’ s a

ppe a l, we do not re a c h the re m a inde r of C ox’ s a

rgum e nts. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

4