N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DAW N HOLDEN, 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. 16-35872 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-05003-B HS
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 B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 19, 2018 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M AN, C i rc uit Judge s . Dawn Holde n

a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of Holde n’ s a pplic a t ion for supple m e nta l
se c urity inc om e unde r Title XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion



# FIL ED APR 23 2018 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 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).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 42 U.S.C . § 405(g). W e re vie w de novo, A ttmore v . C olv in , 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th C ir. 2016), a nd we re ve rse . The ALJ did not err by disc o unting c onsulta tive psy c hologist Dr. Ga

rrison’ s opinion tha

t Holde n suffe rs from

m a rke d lim ita

tion in c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , and pa c e . The ALJ supporte d this c onc lusion by c iting to substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord, na

m e ly Dr. Kha le e q’ s opinion from a psy c hologic a l e va luation tha t Holde n’ s m e m ory , thought c onte nt, a nd inte lle c tua l func tioning we re norm a l a nd Dr. M c C le lla

n’ s e xam note s tha t Holde n ’ s c onc e n t

ra tion, pe rsiste nc e , a

nd pa c e we re within norm a l lim its. Eve n if this e vide n c e le nds itse lf to m ore tha n one inte rpre tation, we will uphold the ALJ’ s rationa l inte rpre tation, se e Ry an v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd de fe r to the ALJ’ s re solution of a

m biguitie s in the m e dic a l e vide n c e , se eTommase t ti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041-42 (9th C ir. 2008). Eve n if the ALJ e rre d by

re ly ing upon Dr. Khale e q’ s a nd Dr. M c C l e lla

n’ s opinions, his finding tha

t Holde n wa s only

m ode rate l y lim ite d in c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , a

nd pa c e is still supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The ALJ a lso pointe d to Holde n’ s own sta te m e nts tha

t she pa rtic ipat e d in a c tivitie s suc h a s c roc he ting a

nd c ould follow spoke

n instruc t ions a

nd pa y atte n tion for ha lf a

n hour,
a s we ll a s the psy c hiatric e va luation for theW a shington De pa rtm e nt of Soc ia l a

n d
2He a lth Se rvic e s by Dr. Quinc i, who c onc lude d tha t Holde n “ ha d no limi tation in he r a bility to unde rsta

nd, re m e m

be r, and follow sim

ple instruc t ions or to follow
c om ple xinstruc tions.” Thus, theALJ susta ine d this finding with othe r substa ntia l
e vide nc e , re nde ring a

ny e rror in this portion of the de c ision ha

rm le ss. Se e Molina
v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th C ir. 2012). Howe v e r, the ALJ e rre d in a ssigning “ littlewe ight” to Dr. Ga rrison’ s opinion tha

t Holde n’ s c ondition e qua le d Listing 12.04(C ). In re a soning tha t Dr. Garrison ha d unde rm ine d his own opinion by indic a ting tha

t Holde n ha d not ha d
any e pisode s of de c o m

pe nsation in the

pa st, the ALJ im

p rope rly c onfla te d the
re quire m e nts of thefirst a nd se c ond c la

use s of Listing 12.04(C ). Wh ile the first
c la use of Listing 12.04(C ) re quire s e vide nc e of re pe a te d e pisode s of de c om pe nsation, these c ond c la

use re quire s only a

pre dic tion of de c om

p e nsation
oc c urring in thefuture an d doe s not m e ntion e vide nc e of de c o m pe nsation in the pa st. Se e 20 C .F.R . Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.04(C ) (2014); W e bb v . Smart Doc ume nt Solutions, LLC , 499 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ A s a ge ne ra l inte rpre tive princ iple , the pla in m e aning of a re gula tion gove rns.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). B e c a u se the ALJ e rrone ously inc orporate d the
re quire m e nts of thefirst c la u se of Listing 12.04(C ) whe n de te rm ining whe the r Holde n fulfille d the c rite ria in the se c ond c la use of the listing, the

ALJ m isa

pplie d
3the re gula

tion. Se e Pitze r v . Sullivan , 908 F.2d 502, 505 (9th C ir. 1990) (re ve rsing
an SSA de c ision tha

t a c l a im a nt wa s not disa

ble d a nd did not me e t

or e qua l a

liste d im pa irm e nt whe re the a ge nc y “ a dde d ne w re q

uire m e nts to [the ] m e dic a l listing . . . othe r tha n those re quire d by

the pla in la

ngua ge of the re g ulation” ). Afte r finding that Holde n wa s not pre sum

ptive ly disa

ble d unde r the listing, the ALJ “proc e e de d to que stion four a

n d five in the se que ntia l inquiry . . . , ra the r tha n stopping a

t que stion thre e . ” Id. at 505-06. This error the re fore a ffe c te d the ultim at e nondisa bility de te rm i nation a

n d wa s not ha

rm le s s. Se e Molina , 674 F.3d a t 1115. The othe r re a sons tha

t the ALJ proffe re d for disc ounting Dr. Ga rrison’ s opinion la c k spe c i fic ity

and support in the

re c o rd. The ALJ’ s sta

t e m e nt tha

t Dr. Garrison’ s opinion “

not only la c ks substa

ntia l support in the

re c ord, but . . .
c ontra sts sha

rply with theothe r e vide nc e , whic h re nde rs it le ss pe rsua sive , ” without further e xpla

n a tion or c ita

tion to spe c ific e v ide nc e in the re c ord, “ doe s not
a c hie ve the le ve l of spe c ific ity our prior c a s e s ha

ve re quire d.” Embre

y v . Bow e n , 849 F.2d 418, 421 (9th C ir. 1988). TheALJ’ s re m ark tha t Dr. Ga rrison ha d obse rve d tha

t Holde n ha d

be e n sobe r for a

littleove r a

y e ar a t the tim e of the he aring a nd tha t Dr. Ga rrison ha d “ m inim iz e d the c l a im ant’ s substa nc e use disorde r throughout his te s tim ony ” a lso la c ks spe c i fic ity
. S e e id.

4Whe re “ (1) the re c ord ha s be e n fully de ve l ope d a

n d furthe r a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings would se

rve no use ful purpose ; (2) the ALJ ha s fa ile d to provide le ga lly suffic ie nt re a sons for re

je c ting e vide nc e , whe t

he r c la im ant te stim ony

or
m e dic a l opinion; a

nd (3) if the im

prope rly disc re dite d

e vide n c e we re c re dite d a s true , the ALJ would be re q uire d to find the

c la im ant disa

ble d on re m and,” the c ourt
m ay re m and for pa

ym e nt of be n e fits. Re v e ls v . Be rry h ill , 874 F.3d 648, 668 (9th C ir. 2017) (c ita

tion a n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). All thre e re quire m e nts
are m e t he re : the re c ord inc lude s two c onsulta tive e xam i ne r opinions, in addition to Dr. Ga rrison’ s e xpe rt m e dic a l te stim ony , a nd the re c o rd the re fore ha s be e n fully de ve lope d; the ALJ proffe re d insuffic ie nt re a sons for re je c ting Dr. Ga

rrison’ s opinion tha

t inc re a se s in m e nta l de m ands or c ha nge s in the e nvironm e nt would like ly c a use Holde n to de c om

pe nsate , a s re quire d unde r Listing 12.04(C ); a nd if this e vide nc e we re c re dite d a s true , the ALJ would be re quire d to find Holden disa ble d on re m and, a s she would fulfill the c rite ria of Listing 12.04(C ). Se e id. ;
se e a lso Pitze r , 908 F.2d a t 506 (finding the se re quire m e nts m e t whe re a ge nc y c om m itte d le ga l e rror by

im posing “ a highe r sta

nda rd tha n the pla in la

ngua ge of the [listing] re gula

tion pe rm its” and whe re no furthe r proc e e dings we re ne c e ssa ry ). Furthe rm ore , the re c ord a s a whole doe s not le ave se rious doubt a s to whe the r Holde n is a c t

ua lly disa ble d . Holde n’ s m e n ta l he a lth im pa irm e nts a

nd the ir e ffe c ts
5on he r func tiona lity are we ll doc um e nte d in the re c ord. W e the re fore re ve rse and
re m and for a

n im m e diate award of be ne fits. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

6