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 HIP E. LEONAR

D, 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. 13-16382 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-08031-FJM 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 Fre de ric k J. M artone , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B LAC K ** , C LIFTON a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. C hip E. Le ona

rd a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the a dm inistra

tive la w judge ’ s (ALJ) de nia l of disa bility be ne fits. W e a ffirm

in pa rt, and re ve rse and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# FIL ED D EC 02 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Susa n H. B la c k, Se n ior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Ele ve nth C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. “ W e re vie w de novo a distric t c o urt’ s orde r upholding the ALJ’ s de c ision.” Hile r v . Astrue , 687 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th C ir. 2012). Le ona rd a sse rts the ALJ fa ile d to prope rly e va l uate the c re dibility

of his sym ptom te stim ony . The ALJ offe re d spe c ific , c le ar, a nd c onvinc ing re a sons for re je c ting Le ona

rd’ s te stim ony

re ga rding the se v e rity

of his sy m ptom s, inc luding e vide nc e tha

t Le ona rd’ s sy m ptom s im prove d a fte r his surge rie s a n d the la c k of e vide nc e of post-surge ry

tre at m e nt. Se e Linge nfe l te r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1035–36 (9th C ir. 2007) (sta ting tha t if a c l a im ant ha s obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e of an unde rly ing im

p a irm e nt tha

t c ould re a sona

bly produc e the sy

m ptom s a nd the re is no e vide nc e of m a linge ring, a n ALJ c an re

je c t a c l a im ant’ s te stim ony

a bout the s e ve rity

of sy m ptom s only

by offe ring spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons). W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s holding tha t the ALJ’ s c re dibility

de te rm ination is supporte d by spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc i ng re a sons. Le ona rd a lso c ha l le nge s the ALJ’ s de te rm ination of his re s idua l func t iona l c a pa c ity (RFC ), spe c ific a l ly

the ALJ’ s fa ilure to inc orporate a lim ita tion for Le ona rd’ s ne e d to m ake fre q

ue nt trips to the

bathroom . “ [A] n R

FC that fa ils to take into a c c ount a

c la i m ant’ s lim ita

tions is de fe c tive .” Vale ntine v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th C ir. 2009). -2-“ In de te rm ining a c l a im ant’ s R FC , a n ALJ m ust c onside r a ll re l e va

nt e vide nc e in the re c ord, inc luding . . . me dic a l re c o rds, la y e vide nc e , a

nd ‘ the e ffe c ts of sy m ptom s . . . tha

t a re re a s ona

bly attribute d

to a m e d ic a l ly

de te rm ina

ble im pa irm e nt.’ ” Robbins v . Soc . Se c . Admin. , 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th C ir. 2006) (quoting SSR

96-8p, 1996 W

L 374184, a

t *5 (July 2, 1996)). Eve n disre ga

rding Le ona rd’ s sta te m e nts a nd te stim ony

tha t the ALJ found ove rstat e d the inte nsity , pe rsiste nc e , a

nd lim iting e ffe c ts of Le ona rd’ s sy m p tom s, the sta

te a g e nc y phy sic ia n’ s R FC a sse ssm e nt supports tha t Le ona rd ha s a ne e d for fre que n t trips to the b athroom , a

nd Dr. R obe rt C am

pbe ll’ s Fe b ruary

16, 2009, tre atm e nt note sta te s Le ona rd ha s a bout five to se ve n bowe l m o ve m e nts da ily . The distric t c ourt e rre d in de te rm ining tha t a ll of Le ona

rd’ s lim ita

tions we re inc l ude d in the ALJ’ s R

FC finding. In pa

rtic ula r, the ALJ’ s R

FC finding inc lude s a lim ita tion tha t pre c lude s m ore tha

n oc c a siona l use of la dde rs, rope s, a n d sc a ffolds. TheC om

m i ssione r a c knowle dge s tha t the re a s on for, a

nd the sy m ptom that justifie s, the la dde rs, rope s, a nd sc a ffolds limi tation is Le ona rd’ s ne e d for fre que nt trips to the

bathroom . The ALJ did not c ite e vide n c e or any othe r ba sis to c onc lude tha

t the lim i tation inc lude d within the R FC finding wa s suffic i e nt to a ddre s s Le ona

rd’ s re c o gniz e d ne e d. The lim ita tion for Le o na

rd’ s ne e d for fre que nt trips to the

bathroom

m ay not be fully

c ove re d by la n gua g e tha

t sole ly lim i ts -3-Le ona

rd’ s work on la dde rs, rope s, a nd sc a ffolds. W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm i nation tha

t this lim ita tion wa s inc lude d in the ALJ’ s R FC a s se ssm e n t. B e c a use the ALJ’ s R

FC wa s de fe c tive , the ALJ’ s use of the m e dic a lvoc ationa l guide line s (grids) to de te rm ine tha t Le ona rd c o u ld pe rform

a signific ant num be r of jobs wa s e rror. The grids did not ta ke into a c c ount Le o na

rd’ s lim ita

tion that he would ne e d fre que nt trips to the bathroom during theda

y . Se e Tac k

e tt v . Apfe l , 180 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th C ir. 1999) (e xpla ining tha t the grids a

re a ppropria te ly use d if “ the y c omple te ly

and ac c urate ly

re pre se nt a

c la im ant’ s lim ita tions” ). It is not “ c le ar from

the re c ord tha

t the ALJ would bere quire d to find the c la im ant disa

ble d.” Be ne c k

e v . Barnhart , 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th C ir. 2004). The de fe c tive R

FC an d the e rrone ous use of the grids le ave ope n the que s tion whe the r Le ona rd is c a pa b l e of pe rform ing “ any

othe r kind of substa

ntia l ga inful work whic h e xists in the

nationa l e c onom

y .” 42 U.S.C . § 423(d)(2)(A). W e the re fore re m and this c a se to the distric t c ourt with dire c tions to re m and this c a se to the C om m issione r for proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this m e m orandum

disposition. Ea c h pa rty to be ar its own c osts. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D in par t.

-4-Le onard v . C o lv in , 13-16382 N.R . Sm ith, C i rc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt: The m a jority a ffords the ALJ a

ppropria t e de fe re nc e in a ffirm ing the ALJ’ s c re d ibility

findings, but substitute s its own judgm e nt for the ALJ in de c iding Le ona rd’ s R FC and whe the r the M e dic a l-Voc ationa l Guide line s (grids) a re a pplic a ble . I disse nt be c a

use t he ALJ’ s de c ision with re ga rd to the latte r two issue s is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . W e m u st a ffirm an ALJ’ s fa c tua l findings if the y are supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e and fre e of le ga l e rror. 42 U.S.C . § 405(g); Tac k e tt v . Apfe l , 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th C ir. 1999). Thesubsta n tia l e vide nc e “ sta

nda rd is

‘ e xtre m e ly

de fe re ntia l’ and a

re vie wing c ourt m

ust uphold the

a ge nc y ’ s findings

‘ unle ss the e v ide nc e pre se nte d would c ompe l a re a sona b le finde r of fa c t to re a c h a c ontra ry re sult.’ ” Ge bhart v . Se c . & Ex c h. C omm’n , 595 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th C i r. 2010) (quoting Monjaraz-Munoz v. IN S , 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th C ir.), ame nde d by 339 F.3d 1012 (9th C ir. 2003)). “ If the e vide nc e is susc e ptible to m ore tha n one ra tiona l inte rpre tation, we m ay not substitute

our judgm e nt for tha

t of the a ge nc y .” Id. 1. To e s ta

blish a c la im ant’ s R

FC , a n ALJ m ust c onside r “ a ll of the re l e va nt m e dic a l and othe r e vide nc e ,” inc luding de sc riptions a n d obse rvations of the 

# FIL ED D EC 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

-1-c la im ant’ s lim ita tions tha t a re not se ve re . 20 C .F.R . § 404.1545(a)(3). The ALJ c onside re d the re l e va

nt e vide n c e and de te rm ine d Le o na rd’ s im p a irm e nts we re a de quate ly

re pre se nte d by

an R FC for light work with postura l lim ita tions tha t pre c lude “ m ore tha

n oc c a s iona l use of la dde rs, rope s a nd sc a ffolds.” The ALJ supporte d he r finding with dire c t re fe re nc e s to m e d ic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord. Spe c ific a lly , the ALJ note d tha t Le o na rd ha d re c e ive d surge ry , the surge ry wa s suc c e ssful, a

n d a fte r the surge ry

Le ona rd’ s bowe l m ove m e nts we re re d u c e d to five to se ve n pe r day

and he wa s a

ble to de fe r the m for at le a s t te n m i nute s. The ALJ a lso note d

tha t Le ona rd’ s m e dic a l re c ords showe d his c ondition wa s im proving a fte r surge ry

and tha t none o f Le ona

rd’ s doc tors ha d pla c e d

re s tric tions on his phy sic a l a c tivitie s. Fina lly , the ALJ ba se d the R FC on a n R FC a sse s sm e nt c onduc te d by

one doc tor a

nd a ffirm e d by

anothe r, a fte r e a c h ha d

re vie we d Le ona rd’ s m e dic a l re c o rds. The m a jority a sse rts the ALJ e rre d by

not inc luding in the RFC Le o na rd’ s ne e d to m ake fre que n t ba throom trips. Howe ve r, the ALJ found Le ona rd’ s c la im s re ga rding the se v e rity

of his urge s to use the bathroom not c re dible , a

nd the m a jority he ld the ALJ’ s c re dibility finding wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Thus, theALJ wa s not re q uire d to a c c e pt a s true Le o na rd’ s c la im s a

bout the se ve rity of his im pa irm e nts in e sta

blishing a n R FC . The re c ord c onta ins no m e dic a l -2-e vide nc e tha t would c om

pe l us to re

je c t the ALJ’ s R

FC in fa vor of one tha

t provide d a dditiona l lim ita tions for Le ona

rd’ s a lle ge d

im pa irm e nts. 2. The ALJ’ s use of the grids wa s not le g a l e rror and wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . To de te rm ine whe the r a c la i m ant c an pe rform work tha t e xists in “ signific ant num be rs in the nationa l e c onom y ,” an ALJ m ay

e ithe r (1) c a ll a voc at iona l e xpe rt (VE) to te stify a s to thec la im ant’ s qua lific ations for va rious jobs or (2) usethe grids. Tac k e tt , 180 F.3d a

t 1100 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). In e ithe r situa

tion, theALJ m

ust re ly on the R FC for the de te rm ination. The grids a

re only ina p propria te if the y c annot a c c ount for thelim ita tions in the RFC , suc h tha

t the c la im an t c annot “

pe rform the full range

of jobs in a

give n c ate gory .” Id. at 1101. “ [T] he fa c t tha t a non-e xe rtiona l lim ita

t ion is a lle ge d doe s not a utom atic a lly

pre c lude a

pplic at ion of the grids. The ALJ should first de te rm ine if a c la im ant’ s non-e x e rtiona l lim ita tions signific antly lim it the range of work pe rm itte d by

his e xe rtiona l lim its.” Id. at 1102. The ALJ re a s ona bly de te rm ine d that Le ona rd’ s ne e d to use the b athroom would not “ signific antly

lim it the range of work pe rm itte d

by [the R FC ] ” and prope rly a

pplie d the grids. Id. The m a jority a sse rts tha

t the ALJ’ s use of the grids wa s ina p propria te , be c a use the grids did not ac c o unt for Le ona rd’ s ne e d to use the bathroom fre que ntly . Ac c ording to the m a jority , the ALJ a d

m itte d Le ona

rd wa s lim ite d by -3-his ne e d to use the bathroom whe n she inc lude d postura l lim ita tions in the

R FC for that re a son. The m a

jority ave rs the s e postura l lim ita tions we re ina de quate to a c c ount for Le ona

rd’ s im pa irm e nt. I disa gre e . Although the e vide nc e in the re c ord m ay be “ s usc e p tible to m ore tha n one ra tiona l inte rpre tation,” it doe s support the ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha

t Le ona rd only re quire d postura l lim ita

tions pre c luding use of are a s tha

t a re ha rd to a c c e ss. Thus, the

m a jority e rrs by “ substitut[ing its] judgm e nt for tha

t of the [ALJ] .” Se e Ge bhart , 595 F.3d a t 1043.

-4-