N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL IENC O, Plaintiff - 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 lle e . No. 13-17251 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02317-R OS 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 R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s, a nd C H EN, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED D EC 24 2015 M OLLY C. 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 9th C ir. R . 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). *** The Honora

ble Edwa rd M . C h e n , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.C la im ant M ic ha e l Ie nc o se e ks re vie w of the de nia l of his a pplic a tion for disa bility insura nc e be n e fits. Ie nc o a lle ge s disa b ility due to sc hiz oa ffe c tive disorde r, atte ntion de fic i t disorde r (ADD), and atte n tion de fic i t hy pe ra c tivity disorde r (ADHD). W e hav e jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. The ALJ e rre d by

giving gre a te r we ight to the re vie w ing m e dic a l e xpe rt’ s opinion ra

the r tha n the opinions of the

tre a ting a nd e xam i ning phy sic ia

ns. Dr. Dy , Ie nc o’ s tre a ting phy sic ia

n, opine d tha

t Ie nc o should “work no m ore tha n 25 hours pe r we e k.” This lim

ita tion is the c rux of Ie nc o’ s disa

b ility c la im , a

nd the ALJ did not givespe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons to disc ount thetre a ting a nd e x am i ning phy sic ia ns’ opinions supporting it. Se e Ghanim v . C olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ An ALJ m ay only re je c t a tre a ting phy sic ia

n’ s c ontra dic te d opinions by

providing ‘ s pe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons tha t a re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .’ ” (c ita

tion omitte d)). W ith re ga rd to Dr. Dy , the ALJ sta

te d only tha t Dr. Dy “ a

ppe ar[e d] to ha

ve a dopte d the c la im ant’ s subje c tive a lle gations and pre se nte d the m

a s he r own, whic h dim inishe s he r ove ra ll c re dibility
. ” This is not a spe c ific and le gitim a te re a son, e spe c ia lly in light of the

ALJ’ s finding tha

t Dr. Dy ’ s opinion wa s “ re a sona ble and . . . supporte d by

the m e dic a l e vide n c e of re c o rd.” The ALJ ga

ve n o re a sons for re

je c ting theopinion of Dr. Gra ff, Ie nc o’ s 2e xam ining phy sic ia n, who opine d tha

t Ie n c o suffe re d va

rious limita

tions. Furthe r, the A LJ e rre d by

a ssigning c o ntrolling we ight to the re vie wing m e dic a l e xpe rt’ s opinion be c a

use the re vie wing m e dic a l e xpe rt a dm itte d tha t he “ re a lly

c an’ t c om m e n t” on “ how m any

hours [Ie nc o] should work a we e k.” The ALJ a lso e rre d

by not inc luding in the

voc at iona l e xpe rt hy

pothe tic a l Ie nc o’ s sc hiz oa ffe c tive disorde r, ADD, a nd ADH, a l l of whic h the ALJ found se ve re at ste p two of the se que ntia l proc e s s. “ If a voc a tiona l e xpe rt’ s hy pothe tic a l doe s not re fle c t a ll the c l a im ant’ s lim ita tions, the n

the e xpe rt’ s te stim ony

ha s no e vide ntia ry va l ue to support a

finding tha

t the c la im ant c an pe rform jobs in the nationa l e c o nom

y .” Hill v . Astrue , 698 F.3d 1153, 1162 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting Matthe w s v . Shalala , 10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th C ir. 1993)). B e c a use the voc a tiona l e xpe rt’ s te s tim ony

did not re fle c t a ll of Ie nc o ’ s lim i tations, the ALJ e rre d by re ly ing on it. W e re m and to theALJ to re c onside r Ie n c o’ s e ligibility for disa bility be ne fits. In pa

rtic ula r, on re m and the ALJ sha l l m ake findings re ga rding Ie nc o’ s a bility to work in e xc e ss of 25 hours per we e k. R EVER SED AND REM ANDED.

3