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 HARLES EVAN R

EED, Jr., Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-17179 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-04752-SM B
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 Susa n M . B rnovic h, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 17, 2020 ** Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : TALLM AN, B YB E E, a nd B A DE, C i rc u it Judge s. Pe titione r C ha

rle s Eva n R e e d, Jr. (R e e d) a

ppe a ls the de nia l of his a

pplic ation for Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc om e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 42 U.S.C
. §§ 405(g), 1383(c )(3), an d 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w de novo the distric t 

# FIL ED NOV 19 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 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).c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm i ng the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of be ne fits. Garrison v . C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th C ir. 2014). W e will a ffirm the a ge nc y

de c i sion only

if it is both fre e from le ga l e rror an d supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide n c e . Tre v i

zo v . Be rry h ill , 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th C ir. 2017). W e re ve rse and re m and for furthe r fa c t finding. 1. The ALJ did not err by not c iting to e vide nc e unde rly ing the prior ALJ de c ision. Thepre v ious de te rm ination tha t R e e d wa s not disa

ble d “ c re ate [s] a pre s um ption tha t [R e e d ] c o ntinue [s] to be a ble to work,” but tha

t “ pre sum ption doe s not a pply . . . if the re are c ha

nge d c irc um sta

nc e s .” Leste r

v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 827 (9th C ir. 1995) (first a lte ra tion in origina l) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd
c ita tions omitte d). “ C ha

nge d c irc um sta

nc e s” inc lude , inte r

alia , a n inc re a se in the
se ve rity of the c la im ant’ s im

pa i rm e nts. Se e id. at 827–28; se e also SSAR 97-4(9), 1997 W L 742758, a

t *3 (De c . 3, 1997). Eve n whe re the pre sum ption is reb utte d be c a use of c h ange d c irc um sta nc e s, the pre vious R

FC finding m

ust be a dopte d

“ unle ss the re is ne w a

nd m ate ria l e vide nc e .” S

e e SSAR 97-4(9), 1997 WL 742758,
at *3; se e also C

hav e z v . Bow e n , 844 F.2d 691, 694 (9th C ir. 1988). Evidenc e is
m ate ria l if “ the e vide n c e wa rrants a [RFC finding] . . . diffe re nt tha n tha t m a de in the d e c ision on the

prior c la im
. ” HALLEX 1-5-4-60, 1998 W L 34083439, a

t *4 (De c . 28, 1998).
2The ALJ e rre d in the a pplic ation of this sta

nda rd by de te rm i ning tha

t the

“ pre sum ption of non-disa

b i lity c ontinue s a s it re lat e s to [R e e d’ s] m e nta l im pa irm e nts” be c a

use the ALJ a lso found “ the re ha [d] be e n a showing of a
c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e .” Se eLeste r , 81 F.3d a t 827–28. Howeve r, the e rror wa s ha rm le s s be c a

use the ALJ prope rly

found tha

t the ne w e vide nc e of R e e d’ s m e nta l lim ita tions wa s not m ate ria l. Se e HALLEX 1-5-4-60, 1998 W L 34083439, a

t *4 (m ate ria lity

is de te rm ine d

by whe the r ne w e vide n c e wa rrants a diffe re nt R

FC finding). The re is no re quire m e nt tha t the ALJ dire c t ly

c o m pa re the ne w e vide nc e to the m e dic a l e vide nc e unde rly ing the pre vious de te rm ination. 2. The ALJ provide d spe c ific an d le gitim ate re a sons for disc ounting the opinions of R

e e d’ s tre ating phy sic ia

ns a nd those re a sons we re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord. Se e Garrison , 759 F.3d a t 1012 (noting tha

t ALJ m ust “ se t forth spe c ific , le gitim ate re a sons for c re diting onem e dic a l opinion
ove r anothe r.” ); Leste r , 81 F.3d a t 830–31 (holding tha

t whe n opinion of tre ating
or e xam ining doc t or “ is c ontra dic te d by an othe r doc tor, the C om

m i ssione r m ay

not
re je c t [the ] opinion without providing spe c ific and le gitim at e re a s ons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord” (inte rna l quota tion m a rks a nd c ita tions
om i tte d)).

3The ALJ disc ounte d the opinion of Dr. C o c hran be c a use the opinion wa s (1) e x c e ssive and inc onsiste nt with the c linic a l findings in the re c ord; (2) ba se d la rge ly on R e e d’ s se lf-re ports, ra the r tha n obje c tive c linic a l findings; a n d (3) not supporte d by the pre sc ribe d tre atm e nt. To thee xte nt the ALJ e rre d in disc ounting the o pinions of Dr. C oc hran be c a use he r opinions were ba s e d in pa rt on R e e d’ s se lf-re ports of his sy

m ptom s, se e Buc k

v . Be rry hill , 869 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th C ir. 2017), tha

t e rror is ha

rm le ss be c a

use the ALJ offe re d m

ultipleothe r spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons for disc ounting Dr. C oc hran’ s opinions. Ne ithe r did theALJ e rr in disc ounting Dr. Fa ria ’ s opinion. The

ALJ pe rm issibly

disc o unte d the opinion be c a use it wa s unsupporte d, c onc lusory , a nd a n
a dm inistra

tive finding re se rve d to the C om m issione r. Se e C

haudhry v . Astrue , 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ The ALJ ne e d not a c c e pt the opinion of a ny phy sic ia n . . . if tha

t opinion is brie f, c onc lusory , a nd ina de quate ly supporte d by
c linic a l findings.” (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d)). 3. The ALJ e rre d in re je c ting R e e d’ s te s tim ony

re ga rding the se v e rity

of his sy m ptom s. The ALJ found tha t R e e d ’ s “ m e dic a lly

de t e rm ina

b le im pa irm e nts
c ould re a sona

bly be e xpe c te d to c a

use the a l le ge d sy

m ptom s.” Se e Linge nfe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1035–36 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ [T] he ALJ m ust de te rm ine whe the r the c la im ant ha s pre se nte d obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e of a n unde rly ing
4im

pa irm e nt whic h c ould re a sona bly be e xpe c te d

to produc e the pa in or othe r sym ptom s a lle ge d.” (inte rna l quota tions a nd c ita t ion om itte d)). The ALJ the re fore
c ould only

re je c t R e e d’ s te stim ony

“ a bout these ve rity

of [his] sy

m ptom s . . . by offe ring spe c i fic , c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for doing so.” Id. at 1036 (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d). The ALJ did not do so. Like in Burre ll v
. C olv in , 775 F.3d 1133 (9th C ir. 2014), theALJ’ s de c ision “ provide s no r e asons for the c re dibility

de te rm ination,” id. at 1137 (e m pha sis in origina

l), nor doe s it ide n tify “ what te stim ony

is not c re dible and wha

t e vide nc e unde rm ine s the
c la im ant’ s c o m

pla ints,” Leste r , 81 F.3d a t 834. The ALJ m e re ly

sta te d tha t R e e d’ s

“ sta te m e n ts c onc e rning the inte nsity , pe rsiste nc e , a n d lim iting e ffe c ts of the se sym ptom s a re not supporte d by

the e vide nc e to the e xte nt the y are inc onsiste nt with thea bove re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity a sse ssm e nt,” and the n turne d to a disc ussion of the

m e dic a l e vide nc e . The ALJ’ s findings a re the re fore “ insuffic ie nt to m e e t our re quire m e nts of spe c ific ity
. ” Burre ll , 775 F.3d a t 1138–39 (interna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d). 4. The a

ppropria te re m e dy is the ordina

ry re m and rule . As in Burre ll , the re is “ se rious doubt”a bout whe the r R e e d is disa ble d
. Id. at

1141. The re is a pre v ious finding of non-disa bility and e vide nc e tha

t R e e d’ s psy c hiatric sy

m ptom s

5are i m

p roving. Thea

ppropria te re m e dy is the re fore to re m a

n d for furthe r proc e e dings. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D FO R FURT H E R PRO CE E D ING S.

6