T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DE AN L . C E R O, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C OMMI S S I ON E R OF S OC I AL S E C UR I T Y A DMI NI S T R AT I ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 17866 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 2 0 8 6 - PM PLRL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry17, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H U G , B . F L E T C H E R , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A ppe l l a ntD e a n L . C e r o appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntuphol di ng the C om m i ss i on erof S oci al S ec uri ty’ s deni al of hi s app l i ca t i on for di sabi l i ty i nsurance b en ef it s u n d erT it le II o f th e S o cial S ec u rity A ct. H e a ll eg es th at P ar k in so n ’s di s e a s e pr e ve nt e d hi m f r om w orki ng s i nc e F e brua ry1, 2001. T he A dm i ni s tr a t i ve 

# FI LED MA R 29 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

L a w J udge ( “ A L J ” ) f

ound tha tC e r o w a s s e ve r e l yi m pa i r e d butdi d notm e e tor e q u a l a n y c o n d i t i o n l i s t e d i n 2 0 C. F. R. Part4 0 4 , Sub p a rtP, Ap p e n d i x 1 . Th e ALJ c o n c lu d e d th a t C e r o c o u ld p e r f o rm h is p a s t r e le v a n t s e d e n ta ryw o rkth r o u g h h is d a te la s t in s u r e d o f

S e p te m b e r3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , a n d th e r e f o r e d e n ie d h im d is ab ility be ne f i t s . W e r e vi e w de novo adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntuphol di ng the de ni a l of s o c ia l s e c u r ityb e n e f

its , s e e O rn v . A s tr ue , 495 F . 3d 625, 630 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , a nd w e r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s . T he A L Je rr e d w he n he f a i l e d t o pr ovi de “ c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng” r e a s ons f or re j ec t i ng the un controvert ed op i ni on s of C er o’ s tw o tre at i ng ph ys i ci ans, D r. A l bert M ic h e lb a c h a n d D r . C h a r le s B e rn ic k . See O rn , 4 9 5 F. 3 d a t6 3 2 . No t ab l y , th e ALJ fa i l ed t o even m ent i on D r. B erni ck’ s opi ni on . “ B y di sr egar di ng [thi s] op i ni on [] and m aki ng contraryfi nd i ng s, he ef fe ct i vel y r ej ec t ed [i t . ] H i s f ai l ure t o o ff

er re as on s f or do i ng so w as l egal error. ” Sm ol en v. Cha ter , 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . A s f o rD r . M ic h e lb a c h , th e A L Jlab e le d h is o p in io n “v a g u e ,” “a m b ig u o u s ,” an d “ p u re p at i en tad v o cacy, ” b u tfai l ed t o ci t e an y ev i d en ce t o su p p o rtth ese as se rt i on s. A dd i t i on al l y, the A L J c on cl ud ed thatD r. M i chelbach’ s opi ni on w as

“ spec ul at i ve” on the basi s that“ there i s absol ut el y no o bj ec t i ve m edi ca l evi dence e xi s t i ng be f

or e S e pt e m be r30, 2002, of adi s abl i ng c ondi t i on of a nyki nd, a nd no3

e vi de nc e , w ha t s oe ve r , tha ti tw a s P a rki ns on’ s di s e a s e tha tha d c aus e d the cl ai m ant ’ s s ym pt om s a s they w er e r eport ed pri or t o thatdat e. ” S uch con cl usory st at em ent s, ho w ever , fa l l shortof a “ cl ear and conv i nci ng ” r ea son t o i gn ore a tr e a tin g d o c to r ’s o p in io n . See E m breyv. B ow en , 849 F . 2d 418, 422 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( hol di ng tha tA L Jdi d notgi ve “ c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng” r e a s ons f orr e j e c t i ng tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n’ s opi ni on w he r e the A L J“ m e r e l ys t a t e s tha tthe obj e c t i ve f a c t or s poi nt t ow a r d a n a dve r s e c onc l us i on a nd m a ke s no e f f ortt o r e l a t e a nyof

the s e obj e c t i ve f a c to r s to a n y o f

th e s p e c if

ic m e d ic a l o p in io n s a n d f in d in g s h e r e

je c ts ” ) . B e c aus e the A L Jf

a i l e d t o pr ovi de l e ga l l ys uf f i c i e ntr e a s ons f

orr e j e c t i ng the o p in io n s o f

C e r o ’s tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n s , w e c r e d it th e e v id e n c e a s tru e . See B enec ke v. B a rn h a rt , 379 F . 3d 587, 594 ( 9th C i r . 2004) . A l though the s e opi ni ons do not u n eq u i v o cal l y est ab l i sh th atC ero m eto r eq u al ed th e l i st i n g fo r P ark i n so n ’ s d i sease before hi s l as ti nsured dat e, 20 C . F . R . P art40 4, S ub pt . P , A pp . 1, § 1 1. 06 , they in d ic a te th a t C e r o b e g a n s u f f e r in g f r o m s o m e s y m p to m s o f P a rk in s o n ’s d is e a s e in 2 0 0 1 an d 2 0 0 2 . W h at th e r ec o rd fa il s to re so lv e, h o w ev er , i s w h eth erC er o ’s sym p t o m s ei th er sat i sfi ed th e l i st i n g cri t eri a, o r o th erw i se co n st i tu t ed a “ d i sab i l i ty” u n d er th e S o ci al S ecu ri ty A ct , d u ri n g th e p eri o d o f h i s i n su red st atu s. W e h a v e p r e v io u s lyh e ld th a t “[ i]f th e ‘m e d ic a l e v id e n c e is n o t d e f in ite c o n c e rn in g th e o n s e t d a te a n d m e d ic a l in f e r e n c e s n e e d to b e m a d e , [ S o c ia l S e c u r ityT hus , i f the A L J“ ne e d[ s ] t o know the ba s i s of [ D r . M i c he l ba c h a nd 1 B erni ck’ s] op i ni on s i n o rdert o eval uat e them , he [has ] a duty t o con du ctan appr opr i a t e i nqui ry , f

ore xa m pl e , bys ubpoe na i ng the phy s i c i a ns ors ubm i tt i ng further quest i on s t o them . ” Sm ol en , 80 F . 3d at12 88 . O r i f C er o h as addi t i on al m e di c a l e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng ons e t , the A L Jm us tpe rm i thi m t o augm e ntthe r e c or d. 4 R e gul a t i on] 83- 20 r e qui r e s the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge t o c a l l upon the s e rvi c e s of am e di c a l a dvi s ora nd t o obt a i n a l l e vi de nc e w hi c h i s a va i l abl e t o m a ke the det erm i nat i on . ’ ” A rm s tr ong v . C om m ’ rof Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 160 F . 3d 587, 590 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng D eL orm e v . Sul l i v an , 9 2 4 F .2 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . In th i s case, b ecau se th e o n setd at e o f C ero ’ s d i sab i l i ty i s u n cert ai n , th e A L J h as a d u ty t o cal l a m ed i cal ex p ertt o assi sti n d et erm i n i n g th i s d at e. T h e A L J al so h as a du ty t o “ ful l y and fa i rl y devel op the re cord” by gatheri ng any a dd i t i on al m edi ca l e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g o n s e t. Se e i d. ; Sm ol en , 80 F . 3d a t1288. 1 F urther procee di ng s are nece ss ary t o add re ss these ou t st andi ng i ss ues bef ore ad e te rm in a tio n o f

d is ab ilityc a n b e m a d e . C f . Sm ol en , 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 2 . A c c or di ngl y , w e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd di r e c ttha tthi s c a s e be rem an d ed t o th e A L J w i th i n stru ct i o n s t o fu l l y cred i tth e o p i n i o n s o f D rs. M ic h e lb a c h a n d B e rn ic k , to d e v e lo p th e r e c o r d w ith a v a ilab le e v id e n c e , a n d to re vi ew the evi dence of the on se tof di sabi l i ty w i th the as si st ance of a m edi ca l a d v is o r . R E V E R S E D a n d R E M A N D E D fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s.