N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL J. DELEGANS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35184 DC No. 2:12 c v -0145 JC C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C oughe nour, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 10, 2014 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : TASHIM Aand M UR GUIA, C irc u it Judge s, a nd C A R NEY, Distric t Judge
. ** M ic ha e l De le ga

n s a ppe a ls from

the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt a ffirm ing the d e nia l of his a

pplic ation for Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc om e and Soc ia l Se c urity 

# FIL E D JUL 29 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 C orm a c J. C arne y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Disa

bility Insura nc e be ne fits. De le ga

ns a rgue s, a m ong othe r things, tha

t the Adm inistra

tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) e rre d in disc re diting (1) De le ga ns’ te stim ony re ga rding his m e nta l lim ita

tions, a nd (2) c e rta in m e dic a l e v ide nc e of De le ga ns’
m e nta l lim ita

tions. W e a gre e and re m an d for furthe r proc e e dings. W e re je c t De le ga ns’ re m a i ning c ha lle n g e s to theALJ’ s we ighing of the m e dic a l e vide nc e . 1. The ALJ fa i le d to providec le a r a nd c onvinc ing re a sons to disc re dit De le ga ns’ te stim ony

re ga rding his m e nta l lim ita

tions. Se e Linge n

fe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th C ir. 2007). Noneof the ALJ’ s re a sons withsta nds sc rutiny
. First, De le ga

ns’ sta t e m e n ts c ha

ra c te riz ing his lim

ita tions a nd work history are l arge l y irre le va

nt. De l e ga

ns ha s not worke d sinc e 2007, the re fore thre e of five of the sta te m e nts on whic h the ALJ re lie d, “ are of lim ite d re le va nc e ” be c a use the y involve d tim e pe riods pre dating theonse t da t e of De le ga

ns’ disa bility
. S e e C armic k lev . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th C ir. 2008); c f. Linge n fe lte r , 504 F.3d a

t 1039. De le ga

ns’ sta te m e nt tha

t he “ do[e s] we l l at ge tting a long” with a

uthority figure s, ha s m argina l proba tive va lue , at be st, give n tha t De le ga ns dire c t ly

c ontra dic te d

the sta te m e nt in thesa

m e que stionna ire four m onths late r. Fina lly , De le ga

ns’ sta te m e nts tha

t he shops in store s for forty -five m inute s a da y , sa y littlea bout his a bility t o ge t a long with c o worke rs a nd supe riors a

n d to -2-tole ra t e the stre sse s of a full work da

y . Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th C ir. 2012); Fair v . Bow e n , 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th C i r. 1989). Se c ond, the ALJ im

prope rly “ isola t[e d ] a spe c ific qua

ntum ” of positive
m e nta l he a l th e va luations. Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th C ir. 2007) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). Those e va luat ions c ontra st with nume rous othe rs tha t re porte d, for e xam

ple , “ worse ning” de p re ssion, pre ssure d spe e c h , frustration, a gita

t ion, a nd thoughts of hurting othe rs, a nd m a rke d or se ve re soc ia l lim ita tions. An ALJ m

ay not single

out m om e nts of good he a lth to disc re dit a c la im ant, e spe c ia lly

in c a se s involving m

e nta l im pa irm e nts, whic h ofte n pre se nt e pisodic a lly
. Se e Tay lor v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 659 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th C ir. 2011); Holohan v . Massanari , 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th C ir. 2001); c f. Sc ott v . Astrue , 647 F.3d 734, 739-40 (7th C ir. 2011). Third, theALJ’ s disc ussion of De le ga ns’ “ m ild” to “ m ode ra te ” m e n ta l he a lth sc o re s foc use d pre dom inate ly on De l e ga

ns’ c o gnitivefunc tioning, not his soc i a l func tioning. And, a lthough De le g an s sc ore d in the“ m ild” to “ m ode rate ” range on som e soc ia l m e tric s, he wa s note d on thre e of four of the psy c h ologic a l e va luations tha

t the ALJ c ite d a s ha

v ing “ m a rke d” or “ se ve re ” lim ita

tions in his a bility to “ re spond a

ppropria t e ly to a nd tole ra te the pre ssure s a nd e xpe c tations of a norm a l work se tting.”Inde e d , only one of the four e v a l uations reporte d “ m ild” to -3-“ m ode ra te ” soc ia l func tioning along a ll m e tric s, a nd tha t e xam ination wa s a dm iniste re d be

f orethe o t he r thre e , in April 2008. Early e va luations of a worse ning c ondition a

re “ le ss proba

tive tha n la t e r re ports.” Magallane

s v . Bow e n , 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th C ir. 1989). And one e va l uation is le s s c onvinc ing whe n thre e othe rs c ontra dic t it. In sum , De le g a

ns’ la rge ly irre le va nt sta te m e nts; a

n isola te d qua ntum of positive e va luations; “m i ld” to “ m ode ra te ” m e nta l he a lth sc ore s a long c e rta in
m e tric s but not soc ia l m e tric s; a nd one e a rly e xam ination with “

m ild” to

“ m ode ra te ” sc ore s a long a ll m e tric s a re not c le ar and c onvinc ing re a s ons to re je c t his te stim ony . Thus, theALJ c om m i tte d le ga l e rror in disc re d iting De le ga ns’ te stim ony re ga rding his m e nta l lim ita

t ions. 2. The ALJ fa i le d to providespe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e to disc re dit Drs. Ha l le y , Ke n de rdine , a nd W idla n’ s c ontra dic te d opinions of De le ga ns’ m e nta l lim ita

tions. Se e Orn , 495 F.3d a t 632. The ALJ’ s a

na ly sis c onta ins se ve ra l e rrors. First, Dr. Ha lle y wa s one of De le ga ns’ tre ating phy sic ia

ns. As suc h, he r opinion wa s e ntitle d to spe c ia l c onside ra tion, inc luding c onside ra tion of thefa c tors liste d unde r 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c ). Orn , 495 F.3d a t 631-33. W e c a

nnot c o nc lude on this re c ord tha t the ALJ c onside re d the 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527 fa c tors, be c a use the ALJ did not disc

uss -4-those fa c t ors e xplic itly and the fa c tors a

ppe ar to we igh in fa

vor of som e de fe re nc e , give n Dr. Ha lle y ’ s c lose an d e xte nde d tre atm e n t of De le ga ns. Se c ond, the ALJ disc re dite d pa

rts of Dr. Ke nde rdine ’ s opinion be c a use Dr. Ke n de rdine wa s “ not qua lifie d to a sse s s the c la im an t’ s phy sic a l lim ita tions.” The re c ord, howe ve r, be lie s the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha t Dr. Ke nde rdine ba se d

he r opinion on a

n a sse ssm e nt of De l e ga

ns’ phy sic a l lim i tations. Rathe r, Dr. Ke nde rdine e va luate d the a ssoc i at e d e ffe c t of De le ga ns’ phy sic a l c ondition on his m e nta l c ondition. C

f. Leste r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 829 (9th C i r. 1996). Third, the ALJ disc re dite d Drs. Ke nde rdine and W idla

n’ s opinions pa

rtly be c a use the opinions re lie d on De le ga ns’ se lf-re porting. B ut we hold toda y tha t the ALJ im

prope rly disc re dite d De le ga

ns’ te stim ony re ga rding his m e nta l lim ita

t ions, unde rm ining tha

t ba sis for disc re diting the m e dic a l opinions. C

f . Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008); s e e also Fair , 885 F.2d a t 605. La stly , a nd m ost funda

m e nta lly , the e vide nc e c ontra dic ting thethre e doc tors’ opinions of De le ga ns’ m e nta l lim ita

tions is we ak, e spe c ia lly

the e vide nc e of De le ga ns’ soc ia l func tioning. Tha t e vide nc e c onsists of the

sa m e e vide n c e , liste d a bove , to whic h t

he ALJ c ite d to disc re dit De le ga ns’ te stim ony . And it am ounts to a

m e re “ sc intilla ,” O rn , 495 F.3d a t 630 (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om i tte d); De le ga

ns’ la rge ly irre le va

nt sta te m e nts a nd only thre e isola

t e d positive -5-e va luations, inc luding theApril 2008 e v a luation tha t re porte d “ m ild” to

“ m ode ra te ” soc ia l func tioning. To cre dit this e vide nc e ove r the e vide nc e from two y e ars of e va luations of a

tre at ing phy sic ia

n (Dr. Ha lle y ) and two e xam i ning phy sic ia ns (Drs. Ke nde rdine and W i dla n) re quire s “ i sola

ting a spe c i fic qua

ntum of supporting e vide nc e ,” w h ic h we m ay not do. Id. (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tions
m arks om itte d). B e c a

use the gre at we ight of there c ord – with but a sc intilla to c ontra dic t it – indic ate s tha t De le ga ns suffe rs m a

rke d or se ve re soc ia l lim ita tions, and be c a u se the ALJ’ s a

na ly sis c onta ins the thre e e rrors disc usse d pre viously , we c onc lude tha

t the ALJ fa ile d

to providespe c ific an d le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e to disc re dit Drs. Ha l le y , Ke n de rdine , a nd W idla n’ s opinions of De le ga

ns’ soc ia l func tioning. 3. W e are unpe rsua de d by De le ga ns’ c ha lle nge s to theALJ’ s a sse ssm e nt of the re m a ining m e dic a l e vide nc e . First, the ALJ provide d c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons to disc re dit De le ga ns’ te stim ony re ga rding his phy sic a l lim ita

tions. Se e Linge n

fe lte r , 504 F.3d a

t 1036. The ALJ re a sona

bly infe rre d that the ove rwhe lm i ng m a jority of tre atm e nt note s de sc ribing re l ative ly

re g ula r bowe l m ove m e nts, a s we ll a s Dr. Le ung’ s opinion of De le ga ns’ im prove m e nt be ginning in 2009, c ontra d ic te d De l e ga ns’ te stim ony re ga rding the se v e rity

of his phy sic a l lim ita

tions. C f. Batson v
. C

omm’r of Soc
. -6-Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th C ir. 2004); R ollins v
. Massanari , 261 F.3d

853, 857 (9th C ir. 2001). W e de fe r to the ALJ’ s re a sona ble re solution of tha

t c onflic t. Se e C

armic k le , 533 F.3d a

t 1164. Se c ond, we hold, for the sam e re a sons, tha t the ALJ provide d c le ar and c onvinc i ng re a sons to disc re dit Drs. Ha lle y an d Le ung’ s opinions, to the e x te nt tha

t those opinions de sc ribe d se v e re phy sic a l lim ita tions. Those

pa rts of the opinions are i nc onsiste nt with other tre at m e nt note s re ga

rding De le ga

ns’ phy sic a l lim ita tions, a nd with e vide nc e of De le ga ns’ im prove m e nt. Additiona

lly , those disc re dite d pa

rts of Dr. Le ung’ s opinion were c onc lusory , brie f, unsupporte d, a nd inc o ngruous. Tommase tti , 533 F.3d a t 1041; Batson , 359 F.3d a t 1195; C onne tt v . Barnhart , 340 F.3d 871, 875 (9th C ir. 2003). Third, theALJ did not err in he r e va luation of De le ga ns’ hospita liz at ion re c o rds. The ALJ c onside re d the hospita liz ation re c o rds during he r ana ly sis of the se ve rity of De le ga

ns’ im pa irm e nts a

t ste p two. And the ALJ did not ne e d to disc uss spe c ific a lly De l e ga ns’ re spira

tory fa ilure or the M arc h 2008 hospita liz ation be c a use tha t e vide nc e wa s not “ signific ant proba t ive e v ide nc e ” of De le g ans’ phy sic a l or m e nta l c ondition in the y e ars following. Se eVinc e nt v . He c k le r , 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th C ir. 1984) (pe r c uriam ) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d). Although the

ALJ did not obta

in the Ha rborvie w hospita liz ation re c ords, -7-the re c ord wa s not a m biguous or inade q

uate for re v ie w. Se e May e s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th C ir. 2001). Fourth, the ALJ e rre d by

fa i ling to a d dre ss She ila B artle tt’ s M arc h 2009
m e nta l he a l th e va luation. B ut the a sse ssm e nt la rge ly duplic ate d othe r e v i de nc e in the re c ord, a

nd we are c onvinc e d tha

t the e rror wa s “ inc onse que n tia l to theultim ate nondisa bility de te rm i nation in the c onte xt of the re c ord a s a whole .” Molina , 674 F.3d at 1122 (interna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). Fifth, the ALJ provide d a ge rm ane re a son to disc re dit C onnie Godjikia n, who qua lifie s a s a

n “ o t he r” m e dic a l sourc e . 20 C .F.R . § 404.1513(d); s e e Turne r v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th C i r. 2010). Godjikia n’ s opinion wa s inc onsiste n t with them a jority of tre atm e nt note s a

n d with e vide nc e of im prove m e nt in De le ga

n s’ phy s ic a l c ondition. Se e Bay l iss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005). 4. B e c a

use we hold tha

t the ALJ e rre d in disc re diting signific ant e vide nc e of De le ga

ns’ m e nta l lim ita

tions, wea gre e with De le ga ns tha t the ALJ e rre d at ste p thre e , in he r re s idua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) de te rm i nation, a nd at ste p five . The ALJ e rre d at ste p thre e in e va luating whe the r De le ga ns’ im pa irm e nts m e t or e q

ua le d listing 12.04(C ), be c a use the im

prope rly disc re dite d e vide nc e of De le ga

ns’ m e nta l im

pa irm e nts m ight show tha t “ e ve n a m inim a l -8-inc re a se in m e nta l de m ands or c ha nge in the e nvironm e nt would bepre dic te d to c a use [De le ga

ns] to de c om

pe nsate .” 20. C .F.R ., pt. 404, subpt. P, a pp. 1 § 12.04(C )(2). Sim ila

rly , we re je c t the ALJ’ s R

FC and ste p-five de te rm i nations be c a use the de te rm i nations fa ile d to a c c o unt for the im prope rly disc re d ite d e vide nc e . Se e Linge nfe lte r , 504 F.3d a t 1040-41. Substa

ntia l e v ide nc e , the n , doe s not support them . Se e id. 5. W e re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. Although we c o nc lude tha

t the ALJ im prope rly disc re dite d De le ga

ns’ te stim ony

re ga rding his m e nta l lim ita

tions and Drs. Ha lle y , Ke nde rdine , and W idla n ’ s opinions of De le g ans’ m e nta l lim ita tions, wec annot c onc lude on the re c ord be fore us tha t, “ if the im

prope rly disc re dite d e vide nc e we re c re dite d a s true , the ALJ would bere quire d to find [De le g an s] disa

ble d on re m and.” Garrison v . C olv in , No. 12-15103, 2014 W L 3397218, a

t *20 (9th C ir. July

14, 2014). Thevoc ationa l e xpe rt’ s (“ VE” ) te stim ony foc use d pre dom inate ly

on De le ga

ns’ phy sic a l lim ita

tions. Only

one sta te m e nt re le va

ntly a ddre sse d

De l e ga ns’ m e nta l lim ita

t ions: thee xpe rt te s tifie d that De le g ans c ould work if hec ould ha ve “ oc c a siona l c o nta c t with thepublic ,” but not if he c ould ha

ve “ no c o n ta c t with the public .” B ut it is unc le ar from the re c ord – inc luding De le ga

ns’ te s tim ony

and Drs. Ha lle y , Ke nde rdine , a nd W idla n’ s opinions, properly

c re dite d – whe the r De le ga ns’ m e n t a l im

pa irm e nts pre c lude a ll -9-public c onta c t. It is e qua lly unc le ar whe the r De l e ga ns’ m e nta l im

p a i rm e n ts pre c lude sim

ple , re p e titive , routine work a nd oc c a siona l, brie f c onta c t with c oworke rs a

nd supe riors. Dr. Ha lle y

sta te d in M ay

2010 tha t, “ from a m e nta l he a lth sta ndpoint, I don’ t think Mr[.] De le ga ns c ould pa

rtic ipate . ” B ut the ALJ is not bound by

Dr. Ha lle y ’ s opinion – m uc h le s s suc h a

n e n igm atic opinion – on the ultim ate de te rm ination of disa bility . 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(d). This c a se is not

“ the unusua l c a se in whic h it is c le ar from the re c ord tha

t the c la im ant is una

ble to pe rform ga inful e m

ploy m e nt in thenationa l e c onom y , e ve n though the

VE did not a ddre s s the pre c ise work limita tions e sta blishe d by

the im prope rly disc re dite d te stim ony [and e vide nc e ] .” Be n e c k e v . Barnhart , 379 F.3d 587, 595 (9th C i r. 2004); s e e also Vasque

z v . Astrue , 572 F.3d 586, 597 (9th C ir. 2008). B e c a use the VE did not me a

ningfully a ddre ss the e ffe c t of De le g ans’ m e nta l lim i tations, a nd be c a use we c annot c onc lude from the re c ord tha

t the ALJ would bere quire d to find De le ga ns disa ble d on re m and, the third c re dit-a s-true re quire m e n t is unm e t. Se e Garrison , 2014 W L 3397218, a t *20. W e , the re fore , re ve rse and re m and to thedistric t c ourt with instruc tions to re m and to theC om

m issione r for a

de te rm ination of whe the r De le ga ns’ m e nta l im pa irm e nts, prope rly

c re d ite d, re nde r him disa b le d. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D. -10-