N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KARENA J. GER

DE, 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. 15-35418 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-05679-M AT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M ary Alic e The ile r, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 28, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd TR OTT a

n d SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Kare na J. Ge rde a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the de c ision of theC om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity de ny ing he r a

pplic ation for disa bility insura nc e be n e fits unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t a nd 

# FIL ED
N OV 30 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 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).supple m e nta l se c urity inc om e unde r Title XVI of the Ac t . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re m and for furthe r a dm inistra tive proc e e dings
c onsiste n t with this de c ision. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm i ng the de nia l of disa bility be ne fits de novo. Orn v
. Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th C ir. 2007). W e m ay se t
a side an Adm inistra

tive La w Judge ’ s (“ ALJ” ) de nia l of be ne fits only if it is ba se d on le ga l e rror, or not supporte d by substa n tia l e vide n c e . Id. Although a n ALJ m ay
re je c t a phy sic ia n’ s c ontrove rte d opinion if the ALJ provide s spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons, Le

ste r v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C ir. 1996), theALJ
m ust provide“ c le ar an d c onvinc ing” re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e to
re je c t the unc ontrove rte d opinion of a n e xam ining phy sic ia

n, Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005). Substa ntia l e vide n c e is “ m ore tha n a m e re
sc intilla but le ss tha

n a pre ponde ranc e .” Andre w s v . Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 1995). I The ALJ provide d suffic ie nt re a sons for disc ounting Dr. B e itinja ne h’ s opinion. Dr. B e itinja

ne h’ s opinion wa s inc onsiste nt with his findings a nd wa s not supporte d by othe r obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e in the re c ord. Dr. B e itinja ne h’ s opinion tha

t Ge rde wa s una

ble to sta nd or wa lk for two hours in a n e ight hour da

y
2and re quire d the use of a n a ssistivede vic e to pre ve n t fa lling c o n tra dic te d his obse rvations re ga

rding Ge rde ’ s a

bility to sit, sta nd, a nd wa lk. Dr. B e itinja

ne h note d tha t Ge rde ha d a

norm a l ga it, norm a l R om be rg te st, norm a l ra

n ge s of m otion,
and full stre ngth in he r e xtre m itie s. Furthe r, he note d Ge rde wa lke d without diffic u lty or a ssista nc e . The inc onsiste nc y

be twe e n Dr. B e itinja

ne h’ s ultim ate opinion a nd his note s is a

le gitim ate re a son to disc o unt the opinion. The ALJ did not err in e va luating Dr. Rodge rs’ findings. Although Ge rde
argue s the ALJ e rre d by

fa iling to fully

disc uss a n d c onside r Dr. R odge rs’ findings, the A LJ disc usse d Dr. R odge rs’ findings a nd de te rm i ne d the findings did not support theim

pa irm e nts a l le ge d by

Ge rde
. II The ALJ provide d spe c ific , c le a r, and c onvinc ing re a sons for disc ounting Ge rde ’ s te stim o ny . Garrison v . C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15 (9th C ir. 2014). Inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n a c la im ant’ s te stim ony and the m e dic a l re c ord, Parra v
. Astrue , 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th C ir. 2007); ina de quate l y e xpla ine d fa ilure s to follow a pre sc ribe d c ourse of tre atm e nt; a nd inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n the c la im ant’ s te stim ony and he r re porte d

a c tivitie s, Molina , 674 F.3d a t 1113, a re prope r re a sons to disc re d it a

c la im ant’ s te stim ony . Spe c ific m e dic a l e vide nc e c ontra dic te d Ge rde ’ s a lle ge d de bilita

ting he a da c he s, diz z ine s s, ba la nc e proble m s , a

nd fre que n t
3fa lling; Ge rde fa i le d to c om ply with pre s c ribe d c ourse s of tre atm e n t a nd re fe rra ls;
and Ge rde ’ s te stim ony

wa s not c onsiste nt with he r re p orte d a c t ivitie s. The ALJ provide d suffic ie nt re a sons for disc ounting Ge rde ’ s te stim ony . III The ALJ e rre d in disc ounting Dr. Alvord’ s opinion re ga rding Ge rde ’ s
m e nta l lim ita

tions. The ALJ de te rm ine d Dr. Alvord’ s opinion wa s c ontra dic te d by the o pinions of sta

te a g e nc y c onsulta

nts who re vie we d

Dr. Alvord’ s e va luation note s a nd othe r m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord. The ALJ disc ounte d Dr. Alvord’ s opinion be c a

use he found it la c ke d spe c i fic ity and c orroborating de ta ils; it
c onstitute d a

ba re a sse rtion of disa

bility ; and it wa s c ontra dic t e d by m e dic a l
e vide nc e in the re c ord. Dr. Alvord’ s opinion is not c ontra d ic te d by any othe r m e nta l he a lth profe s siona ls who tre ate d, e va luate d, or e x am i ne d Ge rde for m e nta l lim i tations. R athe r, non-e xam i ning a ge nc y c onsulta nts who re vie we d Ge rde ’ s re c o rds, but did not e xam ine or tre at Ge rde , c ontra dic te d Dr. Alvord’ s m e nta l he a lth opinion. Howe ve r, the opinion of a non-e xam ining phy sic ia

n “ c annot by

itse lf c onstitute substa ntia l e vide nc e tha

t justifie s the re

je c tion of the opinion of . . . a n e x am ining phy sic ia n.” Leste r , 81 F.3d a

t 831. Thesta

te a ge n c y c onsulta nts did not tre at, te s t,

4or othe rwise e xam ine Ge rde . The opinions of the sta te a ge nc y c onsulta

nts do not
c onstitute substa ntia l e vide nc e justify ing the re je c tion of Dr. Alvord’ s opinion. Furthe r, Dr. Alvord wa s the only m e nta l he a l th spe c ia list to e xam ine Ge rde
and e va luate he r m e nta l im pa i rm e nts, a

nd the only

spe c ia list to c onduc t de ta ile d te sting of Ge rde ' s m e nta l a bilitie s. Dr. Alvord’ s opinion re g arding m atte rs within his spe c ia lity , suc h a s m e nta l lim ita tions, should be

a fforde d gre ate r we i ght tha n the o pinions of non-spe c ia lists. Holohan v . Massanari , 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th C ir. 2001). The ALJ did not provide

suffic ie nt justific at ion for re j e c ting theopinion of Dr. Alvord. Dr. Alvord’ s opinion wa s suffic ie ntly spe c ific an d de ta i le d: in his
e xam ination a

nd e va luation of Ge rde , Dr. Alvord intervie w e d Ge rde ; c onduc te d
m e m o ry te sting; provide d note s and c l inic a l findings re ga rding Ge rde ’ s m e nta l lim ita tions; a nd provide d a

na rra tive of his findings to support his ultim ate opinion that , due to he r m e nta l lim ita tions, Ge rde c o uld not func tion in a n oc c upationa l
se tting. Further, Dr. Alvord’ s opinion is not c ontra dic te d by any othe r m e nta l he a lth profe ssiona ls who tre at e d, e va luat e d, or e xam ine d Ge rde for m e nta l lim ita tions.

5IV

The ALJ e rre d in disc ounting the te stim ony of the la

y witne sse s on the grounds tha

t it wa s inc onsiste nt with the obje c t ive m e dic a l e vide n c e in the re c ord. An ALJ m

ust ta ke into a c c ount la

y witne ss te stim ony

a s to thec l a im ant’ s sym ptom s or how im

p a irm e nts a ffe c t

the c la im ant’ s a

bility to work. Molina v

. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th C ir. 2012). To disc o unt c o m pe te nt la y witne ss te stim ony , the ALJ m

ust providere a sons tha

t are “ ‘ ge rm ane to e a c h

witne ss.’ ” Id. (quoting Dodrill v . Shalala , 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th C ir. 1993). Although inc o nsiste nc y

with m e d i c a l e vide nc e is ge rm ane for purpose s of disc re d iting la y witne s s te stim o ny , Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005), the te stim ony provide d by the la

y witne sse s re ga

rding Ge rde ’ s m e nta l im

pa irm e nts is
c onsiste n t with Dr. Alvord’ s e va luation. Thete stim o ny re ga rding Ge rde ’ s poor
re te ntion of information, c onc e ntration, a nd m e m ory

wa s c onsiste nt with the
c linic a l note s a

nd e va luation prepa

re d by Dr. Alvord. As suc h, the ALJ e rre d in disc ounting the

la y witne s s te stim ony

re ga rding Ge rde ’ s m e nta l im

pa irm e n ts to the
e xte nt he disc ounte d the te stim ony be c a u se it wa s not c o nsiste nt with the obje c tive
m e dic a l e vide nc e .

6V

R e m and for furthe r a dm i nistra tive proc e e dings to c onside r Dr. Alvord’ s opinion a nd the la y witne ss te stim ony

is the prope r re m e dy be c a use e nha nc e m e nt of the re c ord would beuse ful. Be ne c k e v . Barnhart , 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th C ir. 2004). R e m and for a

n im m e diate award of be ne fits is a ppropria te only whe re (1) the ALJ fa ile d to providele ga lly suffic ie nt re a sons for re

je c t ing the e vide nc e ; (2) the re are no outsta nding issue s tha

t m ust be re solve d be fore a de t e rm ination of disa bility c an be m a de ; a

nd (3) it is c le ar from the re c o rd tha

t the ALJ would be re quire d to find the c la im ant disa ble d. Id. Eve n if Dr. Alvord’ s opinion a nd the la y witne ss te stim ony

re ga rding Ge rde ’ s
m e nta l lim ita

tions we re c re d ite d a s true , the re c ord is not suc h tha t the ALJ would be re quire d to find Ge rde disa ble d. C osts sha ll be taxe d a ga inst thede fe nda nt-a ppe lle e Nanc y

A. B e rryhill, Ac ting C om

m i ssione r Soc ia l Se c urity
. RE M ANDE D.

7