N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B R ANDON T. B EYERLIN, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-35772 D.C . No. 6:15-c v-01434-KI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Garr M . King, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 18, 2018 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc u it Judge s B randon B e y e rlin a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion’ s de nia l of his a

pplic ation for Title

II disa bility be n e fits. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s



# FIL ED M AY22 2018 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).orde r de novo a nd the a g e nc y ’ s de c ision for substa ntia l e v i de nc e and le ga l e rror. Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (9th C ir. 2012). W e re ve rse and re m and. B e y e rlin doe s not c ha lle n ge the finding tha t he m a de inc onsiste nt sta te m e nts a bout whe the r the pa in m e dic ation m a de him drowsy . Thus, hewa i ve d the argum e nt. Bray

v . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin ., 554 F.3d 1219, 1226 n.7 (9th C ir. 2009). This finding, whic h is supporte d by

the re c ord, provide s substa ntia l e vide nc e to support the

a dve rse c re dibility

finding. Molina , 674 F.3d a t 1112 (inc onsiste nt sta

te m e n ts m ay support a dve rse c re dibility findings). Any

e rrors in the re m a ining a dve rse c re dibility findings a

re ha rm l e ss. C

a r mic k lev . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th C ir. 2008). The ALJ e rre d by

a dopting a

n inc om ple te re c ord re vie wopinion of Dr. B e rne r an d re

je c ting the tre ating opinions of Dr. Em ond tha t B e y e rlin would ne e d to lie down or to re st pe riodic a l ly during thework da

y to re lie ve pa in a

nd would
m iss m ore tha

n two da y s a m o nth due to his im

p a irm e nts. An ALJ may

re je c t tre ating opinions tha

t a re inc onsiste nt with tre atm e nt note s or a re “ b rie f, c onc lusory , a

nd ina de quate ly

supporte d by c linic a l findings.” Thomas v
. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th C ir. 2002). Howe ve r, c o ntra ry to the ALJ’ s findings, Dr. Em ond’ s 2013 opinions we re c o nsiste nt with he r c onte m p orane ous tre atm e nt note s 2and we re supporte d by obje c tive c linic a l e vide nc e , im a ging a nd the c onsiste nt opinions of the

tre ating surgic a l and pa i n spe c i a lists, Dr. Kitc he l, Dr. M oore , a nd Dr. Ange le s. The re c ord doe s not support the ALJ’ s finding tha

t Dr. Em ond’ s opinions were inc onsiste nt with the note s tha t B e y e rlin ha d

a norm a l ga it during som e of the e xam inations. None of the tre ating doc tors opine d that B e y e rlin wa s not in pa in or did not ha

ve phy sic a l lim ita

tions on oc c a s ions in whic h the y note d a norm a l ga it. In fa c t, Dr. Kitc h e l note d a norm a l ga i t whe n he and the othe r tre ating spe c ia lists una

nim ously a gre e d tha

t B e y e rlin’ s lowe r ba c k pa in wa s c a u se d by ste nosis, tha

t a lte rnat ive tre at

m e nts ha d fa ile d, a

nd tha t surge ry wa s ne c e ssa

ry to tre at the pa in. Nor doe s Dr. B e rne r’ s re c ord re vie w opinion provide substa ntia l e vide nc e to support theALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity a sse ssm e nt. Dr. B e rne r did not c onside r the la st y e ar of m e dic a l tre atm e nt, inc luding Dr. Emond’ s 2013 opinion and othe r m e d ic a l e vide nc e tha t B e y e rlin’ s c ondition had de t e riorate d. Hill v
. Astrue , 698 F.3d 1153, 1160-61 (9th C ir. 2012)( holding tha t a non-tre ating, none xam ining m e dic a l c onsulta nt’ s opinion tha

t fa ile d to c onside r a m ore re c e nt, se ve re pa nic atta c k tha

t wa s inc onsiste nt with the c o nsulta nt’ s opinion c ould not provide substa

ntia l e v i de nc e to support the ALJ’ s de c ision).

3The re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity a sse ssm e nt is inc om

ple te an d not supporte d by the re c ord in light of the

im prope r re je c tion of Dr. Em ond’ s opinions. Tay lor v
. C omm’r , Soc . Se c . Admin. , 659 F.3d 1228, 1233 (9th C i r. 2011). Nor wa s the e rror harm le ss. The voc ationa l e xpe rt te stifie d tha t an individual who ha d e ithe r lim ita tion note d by

Dr. Em ond c ould not pe rform the re le va

nt unskille d se de nta

ry work at ste p five of the se q ue ntia l e va luation. W e de c line to c re dit Dr. Em ond’ s opinion a s true and re m and for be ne fits. Garrison v . C

o lv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th C ir. 2014) (the re c ord m ust be “ fully de ve lope d” to re m and for be ne fits). RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

4