N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KAR I KAUFFM A

N, 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. 14-35609 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00772-AC
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 M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 13, 2017 **
B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M A N, C irc uit Judge s: Kari Ka uffm an a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion’ s de nia l of he r Title II disa bility insura nc e be ne fits. Ka uffm an c la im e d disa

bility due to c e re bra l pa lsy

an d rhe um at oid a

rthritis. W e 

# FIL ED
APR 13 2017 M O LLYC. 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.

* * W e grant a

p p e lla nt’ s m otion to waive ora l a rgum e nt a nd to submit this c a s e on the brie fs. (DktEntry 23).have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo a

nd m ay re ve rse the a g e nc y ’ s de nia l of be ne fits only if the ALJ’ s de c ision is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e or c onta ins le ga l e rror. Molina v

. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). W e re ve rse and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. Ka uffm an a rgue s tha t the ALJ fa ile d to providespe c i fic and le gitim a te
re a s ons supporte d by

substa ntia l e v ide nc e for re

je c ting theopinion of Dr. B a sin, Ka uffm an’ s tre a ting rhe um a tologist. W e a gre e . Dr. B a sin opine d tha t func tiona l lim ita tions in Ka

uffm an’ s shoulde rs, ha

nds a nd fe e t due to joint da

m a ge , swe lling,
and de form itie s c a

use d by rhe um a toid a

rthritis pre v e n te d

he r from working a

nd that Ka uffm an’ s pa in wa s suffic ie ntly se ve re to inte rfe re with he r a tte n tion a nd
c onc e ntration. An ALJ may re je c t a tre a ting phy sic ia

n’ s opinion if it “ is brie 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). B ut, c ontra ry to the ALJ’ s finding, Dr. B a sin’ s opinions we re inde e d ba s e d on a nd supporte d by

obje c tive m e dic a l e vide n c e , inc l uding phy sic a l e xam i nat ion a nd x-ra y s . Dr. B a sin’ s opinions also we re
c onsiste n t with theonly

othe r m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord: the opinion of Dr. Nola n, who e xam i ne d Ka

u ffm a n. Se e Rodrigue

z v . Bow e n , 876 F.2d 759, 762 (9th

2C ir. 1989) (the ALJ m ust c ite “ c onflic ting c linic a l e vide nc e ” to re j e c t a tre a ting phy sic ia n’ s opinion for a

la c k of obje c tive findings). Ka uffm an a rgue s tha t the ALJ im

plic itly and im

prope rly re je c te d the opinion of Dr. Nola

n, a n e xam ining phy sic ia

n, whe n the ALJ found tha t Ka u ffm a n c ould fre que ntly

ha ndle ite m s during a

n e ight-hour da

y . W e a gre e with Ka

uffm an. Fre que nt ha

ndling involve s “ s e iz ing, holding, gra sping, turning or othe rwise working prim arily

with thewhole ha

nds or ha nds” for one -third to two-thirds of a n
e ight-hour da

y . SSR 85-15, 1985 W

L 56857 * 7 (1985); 20 C .F.R . § 404.1567 (2017); Dic tiona

ry o f Oc c upationa l Title s, 379.367-010 (4th e d. 1991), 1991 W L 673244 (1991). C onsiste nt with Dr. B a sin’ s opinion, Dr. Nola n dia g nose d
re a s ona bly a dva nc e d rhe um a toid a

rthritis a n d opine d tha

t Ka uffm an would ha ve proble m s with re pe titive finge r a c tivitie s a nd diffic ulty

with fine finge r a c tivitie s . Phy sic a l e xam i nation re v e a l e d tha t Ka uffm an ha d a

lim ite d a bility to fle x he r finge rs, soft tissue

swe lling in her wrists, thic ke ning in he r finge r a nd knuc kle joints, a n ina bility to form fists with her ha

nds, we ak grip stre ngth, a nd the a bility to gra sp only

with thefirst or la st thre e finge rs. Whe n re vie we d in its e ntire ty , Dr. Nola n’ s re port doe s not support the ALJ’ s finding tha

t Ka uffm an c ould ha ndle ite m s for ove r five hours in a n e ight-hour da

y . Se e W i dmark v . Barnhart , 454 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t substa ntia l e vide nc e did not support the
3ALJ’ s m a

nipula tion findings be c a

use the findings we re inc onsiste nt with the phy sic ia n’ s re port, whe n vie we d in its e ntire ty ). The e rror is not ha rm le ss be c a

use
a ll of the m e dic a l e v ide nc e in the re c ord pre c lude s a finding tha

t Ka uffm an c ould fre que ntly

ha ndle ite m s. The bottom

line is tha

t the ALJ re

je c te d Dr. Nola

n’ s
e xam ining opinion without providing c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Also, the ALJ fa ile d to providec le a r a nd c onvinc ing re a s ons for re je c ting Ka uffm an’ s te s tim ony

tha t he r c ondition ha d de t e riorate d be twe e n 2008 a nd 2010. The only re a s on give n by the ALJ tha

t is supporte d by

the re c o rd – a

la c k of
m e dic a l e vide nc e – c annot be the sole re a son for re je c t ing a c la im ant’ s te stim ony . Se e Burc h v . Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ A lthough la c k of
m e dic a l e vide nc e c annot form the sole ba sis for disc ounting pain te stim ony , it is a fa c t or tha t the ALJ c an c o nside r in his c re dibility ana ly sis.” ). The ALJ a lso e rre d

by disc re diting the

la y te stim ony

of Ka uffm an’ s fathe r, M e rwin Hulburt, by

spe c ulating tha

t Hulburt “ m ight be a

pt to tra nsfe r som e of his
e xpe rie nc e ” with rhe um a toid a rthritis “ onto his da

u ghte r’ s situa

tion.” The re c ord sim ply doe s not support the spe c ulation. Hulburt te stifie d tha t he c ould not
e stim a te how ofte n

Ka uffm an ha d pa in, a

nd the phy sic a l lim i tations obse rve d by Hulburt we re c onsiste nt with a l l of the m e dic a l e vide n c e in the re c ord.
4B e c a

use the re c ord doe s not support a finding tha t Ka uffm an c ould fre que ntly

ha ndle ite m s a

nd be c a use the hy

pothe tic a l que stion pose d to the
voc a tiona l e xpe rt did not inc lude a ll of the lim ita tions note d by

the m e dic a l
e xpe rts, the finding tha

t Ka uffm an c an pe rform

othe r work is not supporte d by the
re c o rd. Se e Thomas , 278 F.3d a t 956 (voc a tiona l e xpe rt te s tim o ny is only re lia ble if the hy pothe tic a l que stion inc lude s a ll of the c la im ant’ s lim i tations). W e re ve rse an d re m an d for furthe r proc e e dings. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

5