N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EVANGELINE DEL C ARM EN PAYAN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-16799 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00741-DJH
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 D ia ne J. Hum e te wa , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 13, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, B Y B EE, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. 1. The ALJ fa i le d to prope rly a sse ss Pa y a n ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) in light of Soc ia l Se c urity R uling 12-2p. The

ALJ c onc lude d tha

t Pa y an suffe re d from

fibrom y a lgia an d othe r se ve re im pa irm e nts, y e t she re

je c te d (1) the
a sse ssm e nt of Pa

y a n’ s tre ating phy sic ia

n a nd (2) Pa y an’ s subje c t ive sy

m ptom 

# F IL ED
DEC 29 2016 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.te stim ony , be c a use ne i the r wa s supporte d by obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e . Soc ia l Se c urity R uling 12-2p pre c l ude s the ALJ from re je c ting a lle ge d func tiona l lim ita tions ba se d

sole ly on a la c k of obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e . Se e SSR 12- 2p(IV)(B ); se ealso Be n e c k e v . Barnhart , 379 F.3d 587, 594 (9th C ir. 2004) (noting
an ALJ e rrs by

“ e ffe c tive ly re quir[ing] ‘ obje c t ive ’ e vide nc e for a dise a se tha

t
e lude s suc h m e a sure m e nt” (a lte ration in origina l) (quoting Gre e n-Younge r v . Barnhart , 335 F.3d 99, 108 (2d C ir. 2003)). Furthe rm ore , the ALJ a sse rte d tha t at le a st som e of the opinions of Pa y an’ s
m e dic a l e xam ine rs we re inc onsiste nt with the obje c tive m e dic a l e vide n c e . B ut the ALJ e rre d in fa iling to identify the spe c ific e vide nc e tha t c ontra d ic te d the phy sic ia ns’ findings. Garrison v . C olv i n , 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ The ALJ m

ust do m ore tha

n s tate c onc l usions. Hem ust se t forth his own inte rpre tations a

nd e xpla in why

the y , rathe r tha

n the doc tors’ , a

re c orre c t .” (quoting Re ddic k

v . C hate r , 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th C i r. 1998)). 2. The ALJ fa i le d to re c o nc ile the a ppa re nt c onflic t be twe e n he r a sse s sm e nt of Pay an’ s R

FC and he r de te rm ination tha t Pa y an c ould pe rform

the oc c upations of furniture re nta l c onsulta

nt a nd photo c ounte r c le rk ide ntifie d by the voc ationa l

2e xpe rt. 1 First, a furniture re nta l c onsulta

nt re quire s a

re a soning le ve l of thre e , whic h is inc o nsiste nt with the ALJ’ s finding tha

t Pa y an c ould only

pe rform sim ple , re pe titiveta sks. Se eZav alin v . C olv in , 778 F.3d 842, 847 (9th C ir. 2015). 2 Se c ond, thevoc ationa l e xpe rt's de sc ription of the dutie s of a

photo c ounte r c le rk
wa s inc onsiste nt with theone in the Dic tiona ry of Oc c upationa l Title s. The ALJ
e rre d in fa iling to re c ogniz e an d re c onc ile the disc re pa nc ie s. Se eSSR

00-4p; Massac hi v . Astrue , 486 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th C i r. 2007). 3. De spite the ALJ’ s e rrone ous findings, the re c ord a s a

whole still le ave s doubt a s to whe the r Pay an is disa ble d within the

m e a ning of theSoc ia l Se c urity Ac t. Se e Tre ic hle r

v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th C ir. 2014). Furthe r proc e e dings would se rve the use ful purposeof a l lowing furthe r de ve lopm e nt of there c ord. Id. The re fore , we re m and with instruc tions to the distric t c o urt to re m a

nd this c a s e to the C om

m issione r for furthe r proc e e d ings. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

1 The ALJ a lso found tha

t Pa y an c o uld pe rform

the work of a

dre ssing room atte nda nt. B a se d on the gove rnm e nt’ s c onc e ssion, thedistric t c ourt c o nc lude d tha t the A LJ e rre d in m aking this finding. W e the re fore do not a ddre ss it he re . 2 Eve n a ssum ing tha

t Pa y an did not raise this pre c ise issue be low, Zav alin wa s de c ide d a fte r the distric t c o urt issue d its opinion. We c an re vie w a n issue ra ise d for the first tim e “ whe n a c ha nge in la w ra ise s a ne w issue while an a

ppe a l is pe nding.” C

mty . House

, Inc

. v . C ity of Boise , 490 F.3d 1041, 1053 (9th C ir. 2007). 3