N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SHIR LEY ANN PER

R Y , 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. 14-15752 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-02089-SAB
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 Stanle y Albe rt B oone , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 12, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and REINHAR DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s . Shirle y Pe rry a ppe a ls from the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic a tion for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits. Thea dm i nistra tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) found tha t Pe rry wa s not 

# FIL ED
MAY04 2016 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.disa

ble d be c a use she ha d the re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) to pe rform

he r pa st re le va

nt work a nd to pe rform

othe r work tha

t e xists in signific ant num be rs in the n a tiona l e c onom

y . W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision de novo a nd will uphold theSoc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion’ s disa

bility de te rm ination “unle s s it
c onta ins le ga l e rror or is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .” Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th C ir. 2007). The ALJ c om

m itte d two c om

m on le ga l e rrors in his disposition of Pe rry ’ s
c la im . First, theALJ fa i le d to providespe c ific and le gitim at e re a sons for disc ounting the

opinions of Pe rry ’ s tre a t ing phy sic ia ns. In de te rm ining Pe rry ’ s RFC , the ALJ a s signe d “ littlewe ight” to the m e dic a l opinion of Pe rry ’ s tre a ting doc tor, Dr. Ossowski, on the sole ba sis tha

t he opine d a s to a

n issue re se rve d to the C om m issione r. While an ALJ is not bound by a tre a ting phy sic ia

n ’ s opinion a s to issue s re s e rve d to the C om m issione r, he c annot re

je c t the doc tor’ s unc ontrove rte d opinion without providing “ c le ar and c onvinc ing re a s ons for doing so.” R e ddic k v . C hate r , 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th C ir. 1998). Eve n if the ALJ de te rm ine s tha t the opinion is c ontra dic te d by othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord, he m ust still provide

“ spe c ific and le gitim a te re a s ons” for re j e c ting it. Id. He re , the fa ilure to provide
any suc h re a s ons wa s ha

rm ful le ga l e rror, a s it le d the ALJ to ignore Dr.

2Ossowski’ s opinion a bout the se ve rity

of Pe rry ’ s foot a

n d a nkle im pa irm e nt a

nd the i m p a c t on he r a

bility to work of thec a

n e he prosc ribe d for he r use . Sim ila rly , the ALJ ga

ve “ no we ight” to “ m any

[othe r] opinions in the
re c o rd”

— opinions which he did not spe c ific a l ly ide ntify

— b e c a u se the y e ithe r
a ddre s se d a

n issue re se rve d to the C om m issione r or “ we re give n for short pe riods of tim e and re pla c e d by p e rm an e nt re stric tions.” As e xpla ine d a bove , the first
re a s on is c le a

rly im prope r. The a lte rnative re a son is not supporte d by the re c ord
and is too vague for prope r re vie w. In e ithe r c a se , the ALJ re je c te d the opinions of Pe rry ’ s tre a ting a

nd e xam ining phy sic ia

ns without e xpla ining why “ his own inte rpre tations . . . ra

the r tha n the doc tors[’ ] , a

re c o rre c t.” Re ddic k, 157 F.3d a t 725. The fa ilure to do so wa s ha rm ful le ga l e rror be c a

use at le a st one of those

“ m any opinions”wa s the opinion of Dr. Ha n se n, Pe rry ’ s tre a ting orthope dist, who opine d tha t Pe rry ’ s im

pa irm e nts pre ve nte d he r from doing m any of the a c t ivitie s that the ALJ in his R

FC de sc ribe d he r a s c a

pa ble of pe rform ing. R a the r tha n give Dr. Ha nse n’ s opinion its a

ppropria te we ight, theALJ re l ie d a lm ost e xc lusive ly on

3the o pinion of a non-tre a ting, non-e xam ining phy sic ia n, a n opinion tha

t wa s
c ontra dic te d by n e arly e ve ry othe r opinion in the re c ord. 1 Se c ond, the ALJ de te rm ine d tha t Pe rry ’ s sta

te m e nts a b out the inte nsity , pe rsiste nc e and lim iting e ffe c ts of he r sym ptom s we re “ not c re dible to the e xte nt that the y are inc onsiste nt with the ” R FC finding a dopte d

by the ALJ. Suc h

a

“ boile rplate ” sta

te m e nt is insuffic ie nt for a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding. Se e Tre ic hle r v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th C ir. 2014). Inste a d, the ALJ m

ust spe c ific a lly

ide ntify the te stim o ny

tha t he found not c re dible
and ide ntify

the e vide nc e and rationa le upon whic h his a dve rse de te rm ination is ba se d. Id. Additionally , the ALJ’ s re fe re n c e to Pe rry ’ s sta te d dista ste for work
c ould not a lone support a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding. Se e Burre ll v . C o lv in , 775 F.3d 1133, 1139–40 (9th C i r. 2014). B e c a use the ALJ’ s de c ision is marke d by pre judic i a l le ga l e rror, we re ve rse . The voc a tiona l e xpe rt’ s te s tim ony sugge ste d tha

t, if c re dite d, the im

prope rly disre ga rde d opinions a

nd te s tim ony

would like ly

have c om

pe lle d a finding of

1 The ALJ m ay

a lso ha ve ignore d the opinion of Dr. Jense n who dia gnose d Pe rry with fibrom

y a lgia . The ALJ m ake s no m e ntion of this im p a i rm e nt whe n de te rm i ning whe the r Pe rry h a s a ny se ve re im

p a irm e nts a

t ste p two of his a

na ly sis, and he only

re fe rs in pa ssing to the

im pa irm e nt a

t ste p four. Ac c ordingly , it is not c le ar on this re c ord whe the r the ALJ c onside re d what im pa c t, if a ny , the fibrom y a lgia m ight ha v e on Pe rry ’ s R

FC
. 4disa

bility . Howe ve r, give n the c onflic ting e vide nc e in the re c ord, we re m and to the distric t c o urt with instruc tions to re m and the c a se to the ALJ for re c onside ration, inc l uding a

ny furthe r proc e e dings not inc onsiste nt with our disposition tha t m ay be
a ppropria te . Se e Tre i c hle r , 775 F.3d a t 1101. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

5