N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
M ART A V AL E NCIA , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. CARO L YN W . CO L V IN , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15750 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00241-DGC
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dav id G. C a m

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2015 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI and T AL L M AN , C irc uit Judge s, a nd RO SE NT H AL , Distric t Judge
. *** 

# FIL ED AUG 31 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te f or p u bl ic a t ion and is not pre c e de n t e xc e pt a s provide d by

9th C i r. R . 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s t

his c a se is s uita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Se e Fe d . R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The H onora

ble L e e H. R ose ntha l, Unite d Sta te s Distric t J udge for the Southe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de s igna tion.1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc l ude d tha t the ALJ e rre d in disc re diting Va le nc ia ’ s te stim ony . W he n, a s he re , a c la i m ant is not m a linge ring a nd “ ha s provide d obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e of a n unde rly ing im

pa irm e nt whic h m i ght
re a s ona bly produc e the pa in or othe r sym ptom s a lle ge d, the ALJ m ay ‘ re je c t the
c la im ant’ s te stim ony

a bout the se v e rity

of he r sym

ptom s only

by offe ring spe c ific , c le ar an d c onvinc ing re a s ons for doing so.’ ” B row n-Hunte r v . C olv in , No. 13- 15213, 2015 W

L 4620123, a

t *5 (9th C ir. Aug. 4, 2015) (quoting Linge nfe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th C ir. 2007)). The ALJ fa ile d to e xpla in with spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons why Va l e nc ia ’ s te stim ony a bout he r sym ptom s a nd the ir se ve rity

wa s not c re dible
. 1
2. If the ALJ ha s e rre d, “ we de te rm ine whe t he r the re c ord ha s be e n fully de ve lope d, whe the r the re are outsta nding issue s tha

t m ust be re solve d

be fore a de te rm i na tion of disa

bility c an be m a de , and whe the r furthe r a dm i nistra tive proc e e dings would be

use ful.” Tre ic hle r v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th C ir. 2014) (c ita tions omitte d) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d);
se e a lso Brown-Hunte r , 2015 W L 4620123, a t *7. Our re vie w shows tha t the

1 Va le nc ia a lso a

ppe a le d the distric t c o urt’ s ruling a ffirm ing t he ALJ’ s finding that he r tre a ting c ardiologist’ s opinion wa s e ntitle d t o no we ight. B e c a use we find that re m and o n an ope n re c ord is re quire d, we ne e d not re a c h the issue of what w e ight the ALJ should give

the c ardiologist’ s opinion ba se d on a ll the e vide nc e .

2re c o rd is not a d e quate to re solve outsta n d ing issue s ne c e ssa

ry to de te rm ine whe the r Va le nc ia is e ntitle d

to disa bility be n e fits. For e xam

ple , Va le nc ia ’ s te stim ony and
som e of the m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c o rd are inc onsiste nt. She te stifie d tha t she
c ould wa lk, sta

nd a nd work only

for up to 35 minute s at a

tim e and tha

t she e a sily be c om e s bre a thle ss a

nd diz z y . B ut Va le nc ia ’ s se lf-re porte d a c tivitie s of da ily living in the m e dic a l re c ords inc lude d he r state m e nt tha t she wa lke d 3 m ile s e ve ry m orning. This sta

te m e n t a lso a

ppe ars inc onsiste nt with he r tre a ting c ardiologist’ s opinion tha

t she c o u ld not work 8 hours a da y , 5 da y s a we e k, be c a

use she c ould sit be twe e n 3 a

nd 4 hours a

nd sta nd or wa lk le s s tha

n 1 to 2 hours in a

n 8-hour work da y . The re c o rd doe s not re solve the se or othe r inc o nsiste nc ie s. 3. The a bse nc e of a

voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony unde rsc ore s the ne e d for
an ope n re m a

nd. W e have re m a

nde d for a dditiona l proc e e dings whe n, a s he re , “ no voc a tiona l e xpe rt ha s be e n c a lle d upon to c o nside r a ll of the te stim ony tha t is
re le va nt to thec a se .” Bunne ll v . Barnhart , 336 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th C ir. 2003);
se e a lso Vasque

z v . Astrue , 572 F.3d 586, 597 (9th C ir. 2008) (re m anding for furthe r proc e e dings be c a

use “ in c a se s suc h a s the se , ‘ w he re the te stim o n y of the
voc a tiona l e xpe rt ha s fa ile d to a ddre s s a c la im ant’ s lim ita

t ions a s e sta

blishe d by im prope rly disc re dite d e vide nc e ,’ this C irc u it ha s ‘ c o nsiste ntly . . . re m ande d for
3furthe r proc e e dings ra the r tha n pa ym e nt of be ne fits.’ ” (quoting Harman v . Apfe l , 211 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th C ir. 2000)). 4. Va le nc ia

argue s tha

t “ te stim ony

from a voc a tiona l c onsulta

n t is supe rfluous” if he r im

prope rly disc re dite d te stim ony is c re d ite d a s true and the

“ re porte d sy

m ptom s e sta

blish disa bility
. ” B ut we do not a

pply the “ c re dit-a s-true ” rule if we have found outsta nding issue s. S

e e Tre ic hle r , 775 F.3d a

t 1105 (“ [O] ur c a se la w . . . re quire s us to a sse ss whe t he r the re are outsta

nding issue s re quiring
re solution be

f orec onside ring whe the r to hold tha t the c la im ant’ s te s tim o ny is
c re d ible a s a m a tte r of la

w.” ). AFFIRM E D and RE M ANDE D for fur the r pr o c e e dings on an ope n r e c or d.

4