N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C YNTHIA HOWARD , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-17692 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01216-FJM 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 Fre de ric k J. M artone , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2015 Sa n Franc isc o C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd GAR B IS, Se nior Distric t Judge . ** Appe lla nt C ynthia

Howa rd c ha l le nge s the de nia l of Soc i a l Se c urity be ne fits. She wa s e m

ploy e d a s a

n a c c ounta

n t but ha s not worke d

sinc e 2005, a

nd it is not dispute d tha

t she suffe rs from

a va rie ty of m e nta l a

nd phy sic a l im

pa irm e nts. 

# FIL E D FEB 23 2015 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. ** The Honora

ble M arvin J. Ga

rbis, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M a

ry la nd, sitting by

de signa tion.Howa rd c orre c tly

points out tha

t the ALJ fa ile d to provideany re a son for re je c ting the opinion of one of Howa rd’ s tre a ting phy sic i ans, Dr. Albe ry , who ha d found Howa

rd suffe re d from

se ve re m e n ta l im

p a irm e nts a

n d from phy sic a l c onditions c re ating pa in he de sc ribe d a s “ e xc ruc iating.” The ALJ fa ile d e ve n to m e ntion Dr. Albe ry ’ s opinion. Our la w re quire s tha

t the ALJ give a t le a st a

“ spe c ific and le gitim a te ” re a s on for re je c ting the opinion of a

tre a ting phy sic ia

n. Leste r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 831 (9th C i r. 1995). The gove rnm e nt re sponds tha t the re we re re a sons the ALJ c ould ha ve give n for re

je c ting Dr. Albe ry ’ s opinion, but we are not a l lowe d to c onside r post hoc ra tiona liz at ions. Bray v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 554 F.3d 1219, 1225–26 (9th C i r. 2009) (c iting S EC v . C he ne ry C orp. , 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)). The ALJ found Howa

rd’ s te stim o ny

not c re dible , but only

be c a use it did not c om port with the A L J’ s own a sse ssm e nt of Howa rd’ s re s idua l func t iona l c a pa c ity . Howa rd c orre c tly

points out tha

t the ALJ’ s e xpla

na tion wa s c onc lusory

and c irc ula r. It fa ile d to providea

spe c ific , c le ar and c o nvinc ing re a s on for re je c ting he r sym ptom te stim o ny . Se e Smole n v . C hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th C ir. 1996) (holding tha

t a n ALJ m ay

only re je c t a c l a im ant’ s te stim ony

a bout the se ve rity

of he r sym ptom s if he provide s spe c ific , c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for doing so).

2In re vie w ing the othe r e xpe rt te s tim ony and m e dic a l opinions, the ALJ c onc lude d tha

t he gave “ gre a te r we ight” to the psy c hologist who eva luate d Howa rd a t the re q ue st of the sta

te a ge nc y , Dr. Trom

p . Dr. Trom

p, howe ve r, note d

“ m ode ra te ” lim ita

tions in the

a b ility to pe rform

a de quate ly

during the c ourse of a workda y and a “ m arke d” lim i tation in Howa rd’ s a bility to ge t a l ong with c oworke rs. Whe n the voc a tiona l e xpe rt wa s spe c ific a lly a ske d whe the r a pe rson with the lim ita

tions disc usse d by

Dr. Trom

p would be a

ble to work, thee xpe rt re sponde d she c o uld not. Ac c ordingly , the ALJ’ s opinion tha t Howa rd re ta i ne d the func tiona l c a pa c i ty for work a s an a c c ounta

nt is the re fore not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . It is c ontra ry to the opinion of the tre a ting phy sic ia n Dr. Albe ry , Howa

rd’ s own te stim ony , the c onc lusions of the voc a tiona l e xpe rt, a

nd the opinion of the psy c hologist Dr. Trom

p whose vie w s the ALJ c re dite d. The re c ord is fully de ve lope d a

nd the re fore the re is no re a son to re m and for furthe r e vide ntia ry proc e e dings. Se e Garrison v . C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th C i r. 2014). The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is re ve rse d with instruc tions to re m and for the c om puta tion of be ne fits. Id. RE V E RSE D and

RE M A NDE D .

3