N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DIANA W OODM ASS,

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 nt-Appe l le e . No. 15-16890 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00895-ESW
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 Eile e n S. W ille tt, M a gistra t e Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

11, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B EA a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LYNN, ** C hie f Distric t Judge
. Dia na W oodm a ss a

ppe a ls the de nia l of he r a

pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc o m e , whic h we have jurisdic tion to re vie w. 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e va c at e and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# F IL ED AUG 29 2017 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 Honora

ble B arbara M . G. Ly

nn, C hie f Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.1. The a dm inistra tive la w judge (ALJ) e rre d

by ignoring the

opinions of Drs. Ting, C ha ffe e , a

n d Va n Ee rd. Se e Garrison v . C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th C ir. 2014). In light of the

ALJ’ s finding tha

t the de c l ine in W oodm a ss’ s c ondition
am ounte d to c ha

nge d c irc um sta

nc e s, re s judic ata

and the pre sum

p tion of c ontinue d non-disa bility do not a p p ly
. Se e Leste r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 827 (9th C i r. 1996). B e c a use the ALJ in this c a se wa s c onside ring a ne w pe riod of a lle ge d disa bility , with no pre sum

ption a ga inst W oodm a ss, the ALJ wa s re quire d to c om p ly with his duty to “ alw ay

s c onside r the m e dic a l opinions in [the ] c a se re c ord” and to

“ e v a luate e v e ry m e dic a l opinion [he ] re c e ive [s] ” whe n de te rm ining W oodm a ss’ s re sidua l func t ioning c a

pa c ity (RFC ) and ultim ate disa

bility . 20 C .F.R
. § 416.927(b)–(c ) (e m

pha sis a dde d). Just be c a use m e dic a l opinions were subm i tte d in support of a prior
a pplic ation doe s not ne gate the re le va n c e of the opinions or the ALJ’ s duty

to
c onside r the m

in the p re se nt a djudic ation. Se e Hammoc k v . Bow e n , 879 F.2d 498, 501–02 (9th C ir. 1989) (holding the ALJ did not provide

suffic ie nt re a s ons for disc ounting a

tre ating phy sic i an’ s opinion, re a soning (in pa rt) tha t “ a ll of the prior
m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord, obtaine d from othe r SSI be ne fits applic ations , supports the

tre at ing phy sic ia

n ’ s findings of im

pa i rm e nt” in the pre se nt c l a im (e m pha sis a dde d )).
2W e c annot sa y tha t ignoring the

opinions of Drs. Ting, C

ha ffe e , a nd Va n Ee rd wa s “ inc onse que ntia l to theultim ate nondisa bility de te rm ination,” nor c an we

“ c o nfide ntly

c onc lude tha

t no re a sona

ble ALJ, whe n fully

c re diting the

[e vide nc e ] , c ould ha v e re a c he d a

diffe re nt disa

bility de te rm ination.” Marsh v . C o l v in , 792 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th C ir. 2015). For e xam ple , the ALJ pre viously

a ssigne d Dr. Ting’ s opinions “ little
we ight,” re a s oning (in pa rt) tha t W oodm a ss’ s kidne y

c ondition quickly

im prove d. B ut, in light of the

subse que nt finding in this c a s e tha t W o odm a s s ha s a

de finitive dia g nosis of c hronic kidne y dise a se c ontributing to a

se ve re im

pa irm e nt, this
re a s oning for disc ounting Dr. Ting’ s opinions se e m s not to a pply . The ALJ fa ile d
e ntire l y to c onside r the re c ords or opinions of Dr. Ting––the kidne y spe c ia list who
m a de the dia gnosis a

nd tre at e d W oodm a ss’ s kidne y c ondition for one and a ha lf y e ars. Inste a d , the only

m e dic a l e vide nc e the ALJ c ite d c onc e rning thesta te of W oodm a ss’ s kidne y

c ondition wa s a

singletre atm e nt note from Dr. De C a s tro, sta ting tha t the c ondition wa s “ sta

ble .” Howe ve r, what the ALJ fa ile d to m e ntion
wa s tha t Dr. De C a stro’ s sa

m e tre atm e nt note e xpre s sly de fe rre d e v a l uation a

nd
m ana ge m e nt of the kidne y c ondition to Dr. Ting. Furthe r, W oodm a ss’ s kidne y c ondition a

ppe ars to ha

ve be e n a nything but sta

ble . The initia l dia gnosis by W oodm a ss’ s kidne y

spe c ia list wa s sta ge III c hronic kidne y dise a se with a c ute
3re na l fa ilure . The c ondition subse que ntly im prove d to sta ge II and la

te r de c line d
a ga in to stage III. And while W oodm a ss’ s m o st re c e nt m e dic a l re c o rds c onta ine d in the a dm inistra

tive re c o rd indic ate tha

t she re turne d to sta ge II, she re m a ine d ve ry ne ar the borde r of de c lining a ga in to stage III. 1 Dr. C ha ffe e opine d

tha t W oodm a ss c ould ne ve r re a c h, ha ndle , finge r, or fe e l , due to a s uspe c te d pe riphe ra l ne uropathy
. In both a djudic ations, theALJ fa ile d to
a ddre s s dire c tly

this opinion. The

ALJ ultimate l y

c onc lude d tha

t W oodm a ss c ould pe rform he r pa st re l e va

nt work a s a

re c e ptionist. Yet the voc ationa l e xpe rt spe c ific a lly

te stifie d in this c a se tha

t a pe rson with the se lim i tations c ould not work
a s a re c e ptionist. Dr. Va n Ee rd opine d

tha t W o odm a ss’ s unde rsta

n ding a nd m e m ory

we re lim ite d to “ sim

p le work-like instruc t ions suc h a s dire c tions, loc ations a nd

1 Ac c ording to the

Nationa l Kidne y Founda tion, the“ glom e rula

r filtra tion rate [(GFR )] is the be st te st to m e a sure [the ] le ve l of kidne y func tion a

nd de te rm ine [the ] sta ge of kidne y

dise a se . Nationa l Kidne y Founda tion, Glome rular Filtration Rate(GFR) , https://www.kidne y .org/a toz/c onte nt/gfr (la st visite d Aug. 14, 2017). “ If [the ] GFR

num be r is low, [the ] kidne y s a re not working a s we ll a s the y should.” Id. An a

ve ra ge GFR for som e one W oodm a ss’ s a ge is 93. Id. A pe rson with kidney

dise a se and a

GFR from 89 to 60 is a

t sta g e II. Id. A GFR

from 59 to 44 indic ate s sta ge IIIa , a

nd a GFR from 44 to 30 is sta

g e IIIb. Id. W oodm a ss’ s GFR wa s 53 whe n

Dr. Ting m a de the initia l dia g nosis in M ay 2009. TheGFR inc re a se d to them id-60s for se ve ra l m onths but droppe d to 54 in Novem be r 2010. W oodm a ss’ s fina l GFR

re fle c te d in there c ord wa s 63 (in M arc h 2012), only four points a bove sta ge III. Additiona lly , Drs. Ting a nd C ha ffe e both indic ate d tha t W oodm a ss ha d a

dia b e tic ne phropa

t hy , a kidne y -re late d c om

plic ation of dia

be te s. 4proc e d

ure s” ; an d he r susta ine d

c onc e ntration wa s lim ite d to “ c arry [ing] out short sim ple instruc tions.”Ha d the ALJ prope rly c o nside re d Dr. Va

n Ee rd’ s opinions
a long with those of Dr. D’ Am brosio a nd the othe r phy sic ia

ns, the ALJ c o uld ha

ve de te rm i ne d tha

t W oodm a ss wa s lim ite d to unskille d work. Suc h a

finding, in
c om bina tion with W oodm a s s’ s phy sic a l lim ita tions, c o uld re sult in a

finding of disa bility
. In sum , W oodm a ss ha s m any m a la die s c om

bining to form

a se ve re im pa irm e nt, a

n d he r c onditions a

ppe ar to a l l be fa irly

inte rre late d. This c a se a lso involve s m any diffe re nt phy sic ia ns opining a s to va

rious fa c tors tha

t c ould
c ontributeto a

finding of disa

bility . In light of the

a c k nowle d g e d de c line in W oodm a ss’ s c o n dition, it is c e rta i nly possible that the opinions of Drs. Ting, C ha ffe e , and Va

n Ee rd from t

he prior a djudic ation c ould ha ve c ha nge d the ALJ’ s vie wof the m e d ic a l e vide nc e he c onside re d in thepre se nt a d judic ation. The se opinions c ould a l so ha

ve a dde d c re dibility to the opinions of Drs. Kline and/or De C a s tro; the y

c ould, likewise , ha

v e de c re a s e d the c re dibility of the a ge n c y phy sic ia ns on whom

the ALJ re lie d. 2

2 The C om

m issione r’ s ha

rm le ss-e rror argum e nt (tha t e vide nc e on whic h the ALJ re lie d wa s m o re pe rsua sive tha n prior m e dic a l e vide nc e , a s it wa s produc e d a fte r July 8, 2010) is unpersua s ive , a nd she c ite s no supporting a uthority . Furthe r, she la rge l y fa ils to re s pond to W oodm a ss’ s a rgum e nts tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm ful. 52. The ALJ provide d spe c ific an d le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e for the we ight he a s signe d to theopinions of Drs. Kline , De C a s tro, a

nd D’ Am brosio. Thepositivesta

te m e nts a b out W oodm a ss’ s c ondition (re fle c te d in Dr. Kline ’ s tre atm e nt note s) we re inc onsiste nt with Dr. Kline ’ s
a sse ssm e nt tha

t W oodm a ss wa s e sse ntia lly inc a pa ble of susta ining work. Se e Bay liss v
. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005). And, although tre ating W oodm a ss e ve ry

six m onths m ay

sugge st fa

m ilia rity with he r c ondition, this
re lative ly infre q ue nt tre atm e nt a lso c ontra dic t e d the se riousne s s of W oodm a ss’ s sym ptom s. Se e 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c )(2)(i) (e xam inat ion fre q ue nc y is re le va nt fa c t or). Dr. De C a stro’ s opinions were sim ila rly inc onsiste nt with his tre atm e nt note s, se e Bay liss , 427 F.3d a t 1216, a nd he e sse ntia lly

a c knowle d ge d re ly ing, in la rge pa rt, on W oodm a ss’ s subje c tive re ports, se e Morgan v . C omm’r of the

Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 169 F.3d 595, 602 (9th C ir. 1999) (holding tha t ALJ c ould disc ount opinions “

pre m i se d to a

la rge e x te nt” on c la i m ant’ s subje c tive re ports (c ita tion
om i tte d)). Although Dr. D’ Am brosio opine d tha

t W o o dm a ss m a

y have m ild to
m ode rate “ diffic ultie s ” with m e m ory , unde rsta nding, intera c ting, a

nd a d a pting, she did not opine

tha t the s e diffic ultie s would pre v e nt W oodm a ss from working. In fa c t , “ [w] e have not pre viously he ld m ild or m ode rate de pre ssion to be a suffic i e ntly

se ve re non-e xe rtiona l lim ita tion tha t signific antly

lim its a c la im ant’ s
6a

bility to do work . . . .” Se e also Hoopai v. Astrue , 499 F.3d 1071, 1077 (9th C ir. 2007). Thus, the

ALJ c ould re a sona

bly m ake tha t de te rm ination him se lf. While the re a sons for thewe ight theALJ a ssigne d the se doc tors’ opinions would othe rwise have be e n suffic ie nt, the ALJ will ne e d to re visit the se opinions
a longsidethose tha

t he e rrone ously

ignore d , in orde r to ge t a c om ple te pic ture of the m e dic a l e vide nc e . 3. The ALJ did not err in a sse ssing W oodm a ss’ s c re dibility , be c a use he
re fe rre d to he r spe c ific te stim ony , e xpla ine d his re a sons for disc ounting tha t te stim ony , a

nd c ite d spe c ific re c ord e vide nc e to support his de c ision. For e xam ple , the A LJ re a sona

bly found tha

t W oodm a s s’ s a

b ility to pe rform

house hold c h ore s, inte ra c t with others, pic k up he r son from sc h ool, a nd c a re for he r pe rsona l hy gie ne we re inc o nsiste nt with he r c la im of disa b ling im pa irm e nts. Se e Fair v . Bow e n , 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th C ir. 1989). TheALJ furthe r supporte d his c onc lusion a bout W oodm a ss’ s c re dibility

by finding tha

t he r c la im s we re inc o nsiste nt with (1) the tre atm e n t re c ords a

nd obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e , se eid. at 604, (2) he r own te stim ony a bout som e of he r c onditions, se e Tommase t ti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th C ir. 2008), a

nd (3) he r fa ilure to c om

ply with re c om

m e nde d a nd pre s c ribe d tre atm e nt, se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th C ir. 2012). 4. Though theALJ did not provide ge rm ane re a sons for disc ounting the
7sta

te m e nts of W oodm a ss’ s siste r, this e rror wa s ha rm le ss. The ALJ a ssigne d the siste r’ s sta

t e m e nts “ littlewe ight . . . be c a use of the ir high de gre e of subje c tivity , and the ir la c k

of m e dic a lly

a c c e pta ble sta nda rds.” Ne ithe r of the se re a sons is val id. Lay witne ss e vide nc e , ba se d o n the pe rsona l knowle dge an d obse rvations of frie nds a nd fam ily m e m be rs, re ga rding a c la im ant’ s sy

m ptom s, a c tivitie s, a

nd lim ita tions, is inhe

re ntly subje c tive
. Se e Dodrill v . Shalala , 12 F.3d 915, 918–19 (9th C ir. 1993). Additiona lly , the fa ilure to m e e t

m e d i c a lly

a c c e pta ble sta nda rds is
an inva lid re a son, be c a

use the ALJ is re quire d to c onside r “ obse rvations by
nonme dic al sourc e s a

bout how im

pa irm e nts a ffe c t a

c la im a nt’ s a bility to work.” Smole n v . C

hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th C ir. 1996) (e m pha sis a d de d ). Ne ve rthe le ss, the ALJ’ s e rror on this issue wa s ha rm l e ss, be c a

use the siste r’ s sta te m e nts provide d e sse ntia lly the sa m e inform ation a s W oodm a s s’ s sta te m e nts, whic h the ALJ pe rm issibly disc ounte d. Molina , 674 F.3d a t 1122. 5. R e m and for a

n a ward of be n e fits is not the a ppropria te re m e dy he re , be c a use furthe r de te rm inations a re ne c e ssa

ry to de c ide whe t

he r W oodm a ss is disa ble d. Se e C

onne tt v . Barnhart , 340 F.3d 871, 876 (9th C ir. 2003). On re m and, the A LJ m

ust c onside r the m e dic a l opinion evide nc e he ignore d a n d de te rm ine how his we ighing of those

opinions a ffe c ts the R

FC a sse ssm e nt a

nd W oodm a ss’ s a

bility to work.
8V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D for furthe r proc e e dings. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be ar its own c osts on a

p p e a l
.

9