N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT IGNAC IO FLETES VER A, 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. 14-55114 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-07078-SS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Suz anne H. Se ga l , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B ER

Z ON, DAVIS *** , and OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED FEB 22 2016 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 pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Andre M . Dav is, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Fourth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Igna c io Fle te s Ve ra c ha lle nge s the de c ision of theAdm inistra tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) de ny ing his a

pplic ation for soc ia l se c urity disa bility be ne fits, a

n d a sks the c ourt to re m a

nd his c a s e for re c onside ra tion be fore the ALJ in light of ne w e vide nc e . 1. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e — inc l uding inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n Ve ra ’ s re ports of disa bility , his doc tors’ findings, a nd his da i ly

a c tivitie s — supports the

ALJ’ s finding tha

t Ve ra wa s not fully

c re dible . Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th C ir. 2012). Am ong othe r things, the ALJ re l ie d on Dr. M artindill’ s a sse ssm e nt tha

t Ve ra would bea

ble to work if here c e ive d prope r tre atm e nt; the fa c t tha t Ve ra ha d worke d for y e ars a fte r injuring his e lbow; Ve ra ’ s e m pha sis on his a nge r and de sire to phy sic a lly hurt othe rs, a l though heha s ne ve r a c tua lly ha rm e d a ny one ; Ve ra ’ s a

bility to m ana ge his fina

n c i a l a ffa irs; a

nd tha t Ve ra ha d ne ve r be e n “ c linic a lly

obse rve d to be in a

ny a c ute distre ss.” The se c onside ra tions provide a de quate support for theALJ’ s c re dibility finding. 2. The ALJ suffic ie ntly e xpla ine d his re a sons for disc ounting the De pa rtm e nt of Ve te rans Affa i rs’ (“ VA” ) finding tha t Ve ra is disa ble d. “ [A] n ALJ m ust ordina rily give gre at

we ight to a

VA de te rm ination of disa bility ,” but m ay

“ give le ss we i ght to a

VA disa bility rat ing if he give s pe rsua sive , spe c ific , va lid

2re a s ons for doing so tha t are supporte d by

the re c o rd.” Vale ntine

v . C o m m’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 695 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tion omitte d). He re , the ALJ note d tha

t the VA re lie d on its re gula tions to re solve re a s ona ble doubt in Vera ’ s favor, se e 38 C .F.R . § 4.3, whic h the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion (“ SSA” ) doe s not do. This dive rge n c e in a ge nc y proc e dure s re pre se nts a

m ate ria l diffe re nc e be twe e n VA a nd SSA proc e e dings re ga rding the re spe c tive e vide ntia

ry burde ns borne by

the a pplic a nt a nd the a g e nc y ; it is not m e re re lia nc e “ on the ge ne ra l ground tha t the VA a

n d SSA disa

bility inquirie s a

re diffe re nt.” Vale ntine , 574 F.3d a t 695. M o re ove r, the ALJ e xpla ine d tha t he inde pe nde ntly

we ighe d the e vide nc e , inc luding thee v ide nc e from the VA doc tors, and c am e to a

diffe re nt c onc lusion tha

n the VA doc tors ha d. The se e xpla nations we re a de q

uate unde r Vale ntine . Se e id. 3. The ALJ did not err in pa rtia lly re j e c ting thefindings of Dr. Wilc ox, one of Ve ra ’ s tre ating psy c hiatrists a t the VA, a

nd in c onside ring Ve ra ’ s m e nta l im pa irm e nts. TheALJ re

je c te d Dr. W ilc ox’ s opinion re ga rding Ve ra ’ s a

bility to obta in a nd m a inta in e m

ploy m e nt be c a

use tha t opinion c o nc e rne d the ultim ate disa bility c o nc l usion, prope rly le ft to the ALJ’ s own de te rm ination. S e e Soc . Se c . R uling 96-5p. Ne xt, the ALJ re je c te d portions of Dr. Wi lc ox’ s findings to the e xte nt he r tre atm e n t note s c o n ta ine d c o nflic ting inform ation a nd we re pre m ise d on 3Ve ra ’ s subje c tive a lle gat ions, whic h the ALJ found we re not fully c re dible . Fina lly , the ALJ ga

ve m ore we ight to Dr. M artindill’ s opinion re ga rding Ve ra ’ s e m ploy a bility tha n he did to Dr. W ilc ox’ s, m ostly be c a use Dr. M artindill, unlike Dr. W ilc ox, que s tione d Ve ra ’ s c re dibility , a s did theALJ. The ALJ’ s e xpla nations of his re a sons for pa

rtia lly disc ounting Dr. W ilc o x’ s findings sa tisfy the Thomas v . Barnhart sta nda rd. Se e 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th C ir. 2002). 4. Ve ra ha s ide ntifie d ne w, m ate ria l e vide nc e tha t wa rrants a re m a nd to the ALJ for re c onside ra tion of thede nia l of be ne fits. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 405(g). In Fe brua ry 2014, re ly ing on som e e vide nc e tha t wa s not in the

a dm inistra

tive re c ord be fore the a ge nc y at

a ll, a nd som e e vide n c e that the first ALJ ha d not se e n, a se c o nd ALJ c onc lude d tha t Ve ra wa s disa ble d a s of De c e m

b e r 22, 2010, a

m onth a fte r the first ALJ’ s de c ision finding Ve ra not disa

ble d. The a d ditiona l e vide nc e , a lthough de ve l ope d a fte r the a lle ge d disa bility pe riod, is pe rtine nt to tha t pe riod to the e xte nt it she ds light on Vera ’ s c onditions during the e arlie r tim e fram e . Se e Booz v . Se c ’yof He a lth &Human Se rv s. , 734 F.2d 1378, 1380–81 (9th C ir. 1984). B e c a use the two ALJs’ de c isions a re not “ e a sily

re c o nc ila ble ,” the m atte r is re m ande d for re c o nside ra t ion in light of the a dditional e v ide nc e and the se c ond ALJ’ s de c ision. Se e Luna v . Astrue , 623 F.3d 1032, 1034–35 (9th C ir. 2010). RE M ANDE D. 4