NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KATRINA MCLAMB,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 35481 D.C. No. 2:16

- cv - 00563

- PK
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Paul J. Papak II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted June 28, 2018 ** Before: LEAVY, TROTT, and SILVERMAN , Circuit Judges Katrina McLamb appea ls the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of McLamb’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We review de novo, Garrison v. Colvin , 759 F.3d 995, 1010

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED
JUL 2 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35481

(9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm for the reasons given by United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Papak II in his Opinion and Order dated April 11, 2017. We attach Judge Papak’s thorough and persuasive “Analysis” as an Addendum to our disposition

. AFFIRMED.3 17

- 35481 

# ADDENDUMMc

Lamb v . Be rry h ill , 17-35481 LEAVY, C irc uit Judge , disse nting. The ALJ found tha

t M c La m b ha s a se ve re im

pa irm e nt of sc oliosis, c e rvic a l de ge ne ra tive disc dise a se , lum ba r de ge ne ra tive disc dise a se , a nd sc ia tic a

of the le ft le g. M c La m

b te stifie d tha

t she “ worke d

through the pa in” of he r c ondition until August 2012, whe

n he r pa in inc re a se d to the point tha t she c ould no longe r sta

nd for m ore tha

n five m i nute s, or sit longe r tha n five m i nute s without shifting positions due

to pa in in he r ba c k a

nd le ft le g. The ALJ found tha t M c La m b is

una ble to pe rform

he r pa st re le va

nt work a s a

wa itre ss a

nd ba rte nde r. He furthe r found tha t M c La m b’ s de te rm ina

ble im pa irm e nts c ould re a sona

bly be e xpe c te d to

c a use som e of he r a lle ge d sy m ptom s; howe ve r, M c La m

b’ s sta te m e nts c onc e rning the i nte nsity , pe rsiste n c e , a nd lim iting e ffe c t s of he r sy m p tom s “ a re not e ntire ly

c re d ible for the re a s ons e xpla ine d in this de c ision.” (ER 16). The re is no finding of m a linge ring. W ith those findings, the

ALJ m a y re

je c t M c La m

b’ s te stim ony

a bout the

se ve rity of he r sy m

ptom s only

by providing spe c ific , c le a r, a nd c onvinc ing re a sons for doing so. Se e Brow n-Hunte r v . C olv in , 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th C ir. 2015). The Brow n -Hunte r c a s e a l s o te lls us, in no unc e rta in te rm s , tha t to e nsure tha t our

re vie w of the ALJ’ s c re dibility de te rm ina tion is m e a ningful, a n d tha t a c la im a nt’ s te stim ony is not re je c t e d a rbitra rily , we re quire the ALJ to spe c ify whic h te stim ony 

# FIL ED
JUL 02 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALSis found to be not c re dible , a long with c le a r a nd c onvinc ing re a sons supporte d by

re c o rd e vide nc e tha

t supports the

c re dibility

de te rm ina tion. Id. (c onc luding tha t the A LJ e rre d by

sum m a riz i ng the e vide nc e tha t supporte d the R FC de te rm ina tion without spe c ific a lly

ide ntify ing the re a sons for re j e c ting c la im a nt’ s te stim ony ); s e e also Tre ic hle r v . C

omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin

. 774 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ W e le a ve to the ALJ to de te rm ine c re dibility , re solve c onflic t s in the te stim ony ,
a nd re solve a m

biguitie s in the re c ord.” ). The ALJ sum

m a riz e d the m e dic a l e vide n c e whic h shows a m ode ra te , but not signific a ntly worse ning, sc oliosis c ondition. The ALJ note d M c La m

b’ s long work history de spite he r sc oliosis, a

n d M c La m

b’ s use of c o nse rva tive m e thods of pa in

m a na ge m e nt. The ALJ wa s re quire d to ide ntify whic h e vide nc e wa s inc onsiste nt with M c La m

b’ s te stim o n y

re ga rding he r progre ssive ly

worse ning pa in sy

m ptom s. In othe r words, the ALJ c a nnot disc ount M c La m b’ s te stim ony

sim ply by sa y ing

“ for the re a sons e xpla ine d in this de c ision” without pointing to the e vide nc e tha t spe c ific a lly

unde rm ine d he r te stim ony . Se e Brow n-Hunte r , 806 F.3d a t 493. The m a jority a ppe nds the distric t c ourt’ s a na ly sis whic h, like the ALJ de c ision, c ite s the re c ord e vide n c e tha t c ould possibly

support a c re dibility de te rm i na tion. B ut ge ne ra l findings, suc h a s “ for the re a sons sta te d in this opinion,” a re insuffic ie nt; ra the r, “ the ALJ m

ust ide n tify

wha t te stim ony

is not
2c re d ible a

nd wha t e vide nc e unde rm i ne s the c la im a nt’ s c om pla ints.” Id. , c iting Re ddic k v . C

hate r , 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th C ir. 1998) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m a rks om itte d). The ALJ a lso e rre d

by fa iling to provide

ge rm a ne re a sons to re

je c t the la y te stim ony of M c La m

b’ s m othe r, a n d this is not ha rm le ss e rror be c a

use the ALJ fa ile d to provide a de qua t e re a soning to re je c t M c La m b ’ s te stim ony . Se e Molina v

. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1114-17 (9th C ir. 2012). B e c a use the ALJ fa ile d to ide ntify spe c i fic a lly , a

nd in the first insta

nc e , whic h e vide nc e wa s inc onsiste nt with M c La m b’ s te stim ony , I would re ve rse a nd

re m a nd with instruc tions for furthe r a ge nc y proc e e dings.

3