N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANNA M AR IE PHILLIPS, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF SOC IAL SEC UR ITY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15066 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-01928-GSA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gary S. Austin, M a gistra

t e Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2015 San Franc isc o C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A, M c KEOW N, a nd C L IFTON, C i rc u it Judge s. Anna M a rie Phillips a

ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r’ s de n i a l of he r a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits. Phillips
argue s tha

t the Adm inistra

tive La w Judge ina

ppropria te ly c onside re d e vide nc e of 

# FIL ED AUG 18 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.he r a ddic tion to pre s c ription drugs in light of Soc ia l Se c urity R uling (“ SSR ” ) 13-2p, e rre d

in disc o unting theopinion of tre ating phy s ic ia n Dr. Dum itru, a

nd furthe r e rre d in disc re diting Phillips’ s pa i n te stim ony . W e re m and to thedistric t c ourt with instruc tions to re m and to theSoc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion for furthe r c onside ra tion. SSR 13-2p provide s tha

t substa nc e use disorde rs do not inc lude “ [a ] ddic tion to, or use of, pre sc ription m e d ic ations ta k e n a s pre sc ribe d.” Although SSR 13-2p
wa s issue d a fte r Phillips wa s de nie d be n e fits, theC o m m issione r took theposition be fore us tha

t it did not re

p re s e n t a c ha nge in the la

w a nd tha t the finding tha

t Phillips ha d a

buse d drugs wa s ba se d on he r fa i lure to ta ke pre sc ription me dic ation
a s pre sc ribe d. The re c ord doe s not support tha t c onc lusion. The

ALJ’ s de c ision pla c e d

“ gre ate s t we ight” on the opinion of Dr. Tem ple , inc luding his te stim ony tha t Phillips wa s “ using m ore m e dic ation tha n she re a lly ne e ds.” Tha

t did not de m onstra

te tha t she use d m ore m e dic ation tha n she wa s pre sc ribe d, howe ve r. The ALJ note d tha

t “ c la i m ant’ s doc tors a

t Ka ise r have pre sc ribe d he r the pa i n m e dic at ions.” The de c i sion did re fe r to “ drug se e king be havior” and the possibility tha t Phillips obta

ine d a gre ate r qua

n tity of m e dic at ion tha

n pre sc ribe d by

c la im i ng tha

t 2the m e dic at ion wa s stole n. Substa n tia l e v ide nc e supporte d

the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t on m ultipleoc c a sions, Phillips re que ste d a dditiona l pre s c riptions be c a

use he r m e dic ation ha d be e n “ stole n” or “ lost.” She a lso fa ile d to a tte nd pa in m ana ge m e nt progra m s to whic h he r doc tors ha d re fe rre d he r. B ut ne ithe r the ALJ’ s de c ision nor the te stim ony

of Dr. Te m

ple upon whic h it re lie d distinguishe d be t

we e n (a ) m e dic ations ta

ke n in e xc e ss of the am o unts pre s c ribe d by

Phillips’ s doc tors a

nd (b) m e dic ations ta

ke n a s pre sc ribe d tha

t Dr. Te m ple be l ie ve d we re unne c e ssa ry and should not ha

ve be e n pre sc ribe d. The latte r c ate gory would not ne c e s sa

rily indic ate a

substa nc e use disorde r a s de fine d by the C om m issione r. Sim ila

rly , the ALJ a

ttribute d the side e ffe c ts tha

t lim ite d Phillips to le ss tha n se de nta ry work to “ taking thee xc e ssive qua ntitie s of m e dic ation, le ve ls that Dr. Te m ple fe e ls is unne c e ssa

ry . ” B ut tha

t Dr. Te m ple be lie ve d the
m e dic at ions we re unne c e ssa ry did not e sta

b lish tha t the y ha d not be e n ta

ke n a s pre s c ribe d. The ALJ found tha

t with “ substa

nc e a b use , ” Phillips wa s disa

ble d. B ut the de c ision did not sta

t e a finding a s to whe the r Phillips would ha ve be e n disa

b le d if she lim ite d he r use to m e dic ations ta ke n a s pre sc ribe d. Ne ithe r the pre c ise ba sis for the ALJ’ s finding nor the im pa c t of SSR

13-2p in this c onte xt is c le ar, and those que stions should be a ddre sse d by

the a ge nc y

in the first insta

nc e . On 3re m and, the a ge n c y should de te rm ine whe the r Phillips’ s e xc e ssive use c o nstitute d
e vide nc e of a

substa nc e use disorde r. The ALJ ina de quate ly artic ulate d the ba sis for dismissing the opinion of the tre ating phy sic i a

n, Dr. Dum itru. B e c a

use Dr. Dum itru’ s opinion wa s c ontra dic te d, the A LJ ha d to provide“ spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons” ba se d on substa ntia l
e vide nc e be fore re

je c ting it. Se e Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th C ir. 2007)
. The ALJ e xpla ine d tha

t Dr. Dum itru’ s opinion wa s inc onsiste nt with the re c ord
and c ontra dic te d by

the opinions of Dr. Tem

ple and the State Age nc y , a s we ll a s a m e dic a l note by

Dr. Swe e ne y . The ALJ la te r disc usse d a

nd note d his re l ia

nc e on Dr. Te m ple ’ s opinion a

nd the note by

Dr. Swe e ne y , but le ft his spe c ific re a sons for disc ounting Dr. Dum

itru’ s opinion to be

infe rre d. On re m and, the ALJ should
re c o nside r his dismissa l of Dr. Dum itru’ s opinion. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supporte d

the ALJ’ s c re dibility

de te rm ination re ga

rding Phillips. The

ALJ provide d c le ar and c onvinc ing re a s ons for disc re diting Phillips’ s pa in te stim o ny . Se e Linge nfe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th C ir. 2007). In m aking this dete rm ination, theALJ prope rly c onside re d inc onsiste nc ie s in Phillips’ s te stim ony

a s we ll a s inc o nsiste nc ie s be twe e n he r te stim ony and he r da ily
a c tivitie s, work post disa

bility onse t, a nd the obje c tive m e dic a l re c ord. Se e Smole n

4v . C

hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th C ir. 1996); Burc h v . Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th C i r. 2005). C osts a re aw arde d

to a ppe lla nt Phillips. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

5