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.

T he H on orabl e R anerC . C ol l i ns, D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** C our tf orA r i z ona , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

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 M I CH ELLE R H U RTER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I CHAEL J . ASTR UE, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 35997 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 5 6 1 7 - RBL 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 W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R ona l d B . L e i ght on, 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 O c t obe r14, 2011

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: B E E Z E R and P A E Z , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O L L IN S , D i stri ctJudg e. ** M i c he l l e H urt e rc ha l l e nge s the de ni a l of di s abi l i ty be ne f

i t s by the C om m i ss i on erof the S oci al S ec uri ty A dm i ni stra t i on . B ec ause w e hol d that 

# FI LED JAN 06 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSP a ge 2 of 12 subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the deci si on of the adm i ni stra t i ve l aw j ud ge (A L J) , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on ove rthi s m a tt e rpur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. T he fa ct s of thi s c as e are kn ow n t o the part i es . W e nee d n otre peatthem here . I W e r e vi e w de novo a n or de rby the di s tr i c tc our tuphol di ng ade c i s i on by the S o c ia l S e c u r ity C o m m is s io n e rth a t d e n ie s b e n e f its to a n ap p lic a n t. B at

son v. C om m ’ rof

the Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 3 5 9 F. 3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 3 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a f f i rm a de c i s i on by the C om m i s s i one ri f i ti s “ s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , a nd i f the C om m i ss i on erappl i ed the corre ctl egal st andards. ” I d. I f th e “e v id e n c e is susc ept i bl e t o m ore than o ne ra t i on al i nt erpret at i on , i ti s the A L J’ s c on cl usi on that m ustbe up hel d. ” B u rch v. B a rn h a rt , 40 0 F . 3d 67 6, 67 9 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). II H urt erfi rs tar gu es thatthe A L J e rr ed by fa i l i ng t o cl as si fysom e of her a lle g e d im p a irm e n ts a s s e v e r e . H u r te ris in c o rr e c t. T h e A L J p ro v id ed am p le su p p o rt in d eter m in in g w h ich o f H u rter ’s im p airm en ts w er e n o n -s ev er e. F o r e x am p le, th er e w as n o ev id en ce o f a p p ellan t’ s depres si on or anxi ety other than h ersubj ec t i ve com pl ai nt s. F urther, the evi dence show ed thatm edi ca t i on w as tre at i ng her m i grai nes and hi gh bl oo d p re ss ure.P a ge 3 of 12 H u rt er al so arg u es th atth e A L J fai l ed ev en t o i d en t i fy cert ai n i m p ai rm en t s. S he c ont e nds tha tthe m e di c a l r e c or d s uppor t s he ra r gum e nt , butm os tof the re po rt s s he ci t es ar e i ncon cl usi ve. T he tw o m ostsa l i entpi ec es of evi dence supp ort i ng her c as e are D r. S ei w ert ’ s e val uat i on s and H urt er ’ s ow n t es t i m on y a t th e b e n e f its h e a r in g . B u t, a s w e d is c u s s in P a r t I I I b e lo w , th e A L J p r o p e r ly di sc re di t ed bo th. H urt erhad the bu rden of prov i ng thather i m pai rm ent s a ff ec t ed h e rab ility to p e r f

o rm b a s ic w o rka c tiv itie s , E d lu n d v. M a ssa n a ri , 253 F . 3d 1152, 1159–60 ( 9th C i r . 2001) , a nd s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the A L J ’ s c onc l us i on tha ts he di d notm e e ttha tbur de n. II I H urt e rne xtc ont e nds tha tthe A L J m a de ava r i e ty of m i s t a ke s i n a s s e s s i ng he rr e s i dua l f

unc t i ona l c apa c i ty ( R F C ) . S he a r gue s tha tthe A L J e rr e d by di s c r e di t i ng he rhe a r i ng t e s t i m ony , e va l ua t i ng the m e di c a l e vi de nc e a s he di d, a nd f a i l i ng t o c ons i de ra l l of

he ri m pa i rm e nt s . W e a ddr e s s e a c h i n turn. T h e A L J d id n o t e rrin d is c o u n tin g H u r te r ’s te s tim o n y . C r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s a r e th e p r o v in c e o f th e A L J , Morga n v. C om m ’rof So c. Sec. A dm i n. , 1 6 9 F .3 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), b u t “ th e A L J c an re ject th e c laim an t’ s t e s t i m ony aboutthe s e ve r i ty of he rs y m pt om s onl y by of f e r i ng s pe c i f

i c , c l e a ra ndP a ge 4 of 12 conv i nci ng re as on s f

or do i ng so. ” Sm ol en v. Cha ter , 80 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 81 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). T he A L J pr ovi de d num e r ous s pe c i f i c , c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng r e a s ons t o f i nd tha tH ur t e rha d e xa gge r a t e d the gr a vi ty of he rs y m pt om s . F i r s t , the obj e c t i ve e v id e n c e c o n tr a d ic ts H u rte r ’s te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g th e s e v e r ity o f h e rs y m p to m s . F or exam pl e, the A L J r ef er ence d a do ct or’ s r eportthatst at ed she had a norm al t andem gai t . H urt eri s c orre ctthatthere i s s om e c on fl i ct i ng evi dence; a physi ca l th e r ap is t c o n c lu d e d th a t H u rte rd o e s s u f f e rf r o m s o m e g a it is s u e s . W e d o n o t, how e ve r , “ r e ve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons of a n A L J ba s e d on c ontr a di c t ory or am bi gu ou s e vi dence. ” J o h n s o n v . Sh a la la , 60 F . 3d 14 28 , 14 34 (9th C i r. 19 95 ). T h e A L J n o te d H u rte r ’s c o n s e rv a tiv e tr e a tm e n t a s a n o th e rr e a s o n to d is c r e d it h e rte s tim o n y . “[ E ]v id e n c e o f ‘c o n s e rv a tiv e tr e a tm e n t’ is s u f f ic ie n t to d is c o u n t a cl ai m ant ’ s t es t i m on y r egar di ng se veri ty of an i m pai rm ent . ” P ar r a v . A s tr ue , 481 F . 3d 742, 751 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng J ohns on , 6 0 F. 3 d a t1 4 3 4 ) . Th e ALJ re fe re nced the pres cr i pt i on of ho m e e xerc i se t o tre ather back proble m s, the fa ct th a t s h e w a s n o t ac a n d id a te f o rs u r g e ry a n d th e s u c c e s s f u l u s e o f m e d ic a tio n to treath er m i g rai n es. H urt e r ’ s f

a i l ur e t o f

ol l ow pr e s c r i be d tr e a tm e ntw i thouta de qua t e e xpl a na t i on is a ls o r e le v a n t to ac r e d ib ility a n a ly s is . Se e T om m as e t t iv . A s tr ue , 533 F . 3d 1035,P a ge 5 of 12 10 39 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). H urt ercont i nu es t o sm ok e des pi t e w arni ng s f rom her do ct ors r egar di ng i t s i m pacton her l un g con di t i on and h as “ decr ea se d adh er ence ” t o h er p rescri b ed ex erci ses d u e t o fo rg et fu l n ess. H u rte ra r g u e s c o rr e c tly th a t th e A L J s h o u ld n o t h a v e c ite d h e rd a ily ac t i vi t i es as a r ea son t o d i sc re di ther t es t i m on y. T hey nei ther c on tra di cther other te s tim o n y n o rb e a ram e a n in g f u l r e la tio n s h ip to w o rkp la c e a c tiv itie s . See O rn v. A s tr ue , 49 5 F . 3d 62 5, 63 9 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). E ven excl ud i ng thi s r at i on al e, ho w ever , the r e r e m a i ns s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng the A L J ’ s de c i s i on t o di s c ount H u r te r ’s te s tim o n y . See T on ap et yan v. H al ter , 24 2 F . 3d 11 44 , 11 48 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). W e turn n extt o the A L J’ s anal ys i s of D r. S ei w ert ’ s r eport s. W e hol d that the r e i s s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e f orr e j e c t i ng he re va l ua t i ons . B utbe c aus e of the d e f e r e n c e o u rc ir c u it a c c o r d s th e o p in io n s o f tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n s , se e L es terv. Cha ter , 81 F . 3d 82 1, 83 0 (9th C i r. 19 95 ), and the fa ctthatD r. S ei w ertand H urt er h av e a 1 5 -year treatm en trel at i o n sh i p , w e w i l l ex p l ai n o u r reaso n i n g th o ro u g h l y. W e not e i ni t i a l l y tha tthe A L J ne e de d onl y t o pr ovi de “ s pe c i f i c a nd leg it im ate” re as o n s s u p p o rted b y s u b stan ti al ev id en ce fo r r ejec ti n g D r. S eiw er t’ s o p in io n . I

d. ( hol di ng tha ta n A L J m us tha ve s pe c i f i c a nd l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons f or r e je c tin g atr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’s o p in io n w h e n it is c o n tr a d ic te d b y a n o th e rd o c to r ) .P a ge 6 of 12 “ T he A L J c a n m e e tthi s bur de n by s e tt i ng outade t a i l e d a nd thor ough s um m a ry of the f a c t s a nd c onf

l i c t i ng c l i ni c a l e vi de nc e , s t a t i ng [ hi s ] i nt e rpr e t a t i on the r e of , a nd m aki ng fi nd i ng s. ” T

o m m a s e tti , 533 F . 3d a t1041 ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rk s o m itte d ) . D r . R a o c o n c lu d e d th a t H u r te rc o u ld s ta n d o rw a lkc o m f o r tab ly for s i x h ou rs a dayand l i ftup t o 2 5 p ou nd s f re qu ent l y, di re ct l y c on tra veni ng D r. S ei w ert ’ s a ss es sm ent . T he spec i fi c and l egi t i m at e s t andard i s l es s s earc hi ng than the c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng r a t i ona l e r e qui r e d f orr e j e c t i ng the unc ontr a di c t e d opi ni on o f atr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n , se e L es ter , 8 1 F .3 d a t 8 3 0

– 3 1 , a n d th e A L J p r o p e r ly ex p l ai n ed w h y h e rel i ed o n D r. R ao ’ s ev al u at i o n i n st ead o f D r. S ei w ert ’ s. T he A L J m e thi s bur de n by pr ovi di ng s pe c i f i c a nd l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons f or r e je c tin g D r . S e iw e rt’s o p in io n s . F ir s t, th e A L J n o te d th a t th e d o c to r ’s r e p o r ts w er e l ar gel y i nform ed by H urt er ’ s ow n subj ec t i ve com pl ai nt s. W e have hel d that “[ a ]n A L J m a y r e

je c t atr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’s o p in io n if it is b a s e d ‘to ala r g e e x te n t’ on a c l ai m ant ’ s s el f- re po rt s thathave been prop er l y di sc ou nt ed as i ncre di bl e. ” T o m m a s e tti , 533 F . 3d a t1041 ( quot i ng Mor gan , 16 9 F . 3d at60 2). T he re cord supp ort s the A L J’ s c on cl usi on . M uch o f the fi rs teval uat i on re coun t s w hatD r. S e i w e r the r s e l f

l abe l s H urt e r ’ s “ S ubj e c t i ve M e di c a l H i s t ory ” or“ S ubj e c t i ve a nd M edi ca l H i st ory. ” T he i nform at i on thatfol l ow s f i t s thi s des cr i pt i on . F or exam pl e, i n the paragraph l abel ed “ depres si on ” D r. S ei w ertw ri t es thatH urt er“ suff er edP a ge 7 of 12 abus e a s ac hi l d, w hi c h c aus e d de pr e s s i on a nd s ubs e que ntdrug abus e . ” T he r e i s no other s uch evi dence i n the re cord. T he paragraph on m i grai nes i s c om pri se d a l m os te nt i r e l y of

de s c r i pt i ons of

pa i n a nd f

r e que nc y of

s y m pt om s . T he he a r i ng lo s s s e c tio n n o te s th a t H u rte rr e c e iv e d ar e c o m m e n d a tio n f o rh e a r in g a id s . I n f

a c t, D r. B eck er o n l y w ro t e th atH u rt er w as “ b o rd erl i n e” fo r h eari n g ai d s. T he A L J a l so re as on ed thatthe m edi ca l re cord as a w ho l e di d n otsupp ort D r. S ei w ert ’ s c on cl usi on s. T he contraryop i ni on s of other doct ors c on st i tut e a s pe c i f i c a nd l e gi t i m a t e r e a s on t o di s c ountatr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n’ s opi ni on. See T onape t y an , 24 2 F . 3d at11 49 . D rs . R ao and M erri l l bo th con cl ud ed thatH urt er coul d si tor st and for si x h ou rs ou tof an ei gh t -hou r w orkd ay , contraryt o D r. S ei w ert ’ s a ss es sm ent . T ho se do ct ors a l so op i ned thatH urt erhad the abi l i ty t o l i ft w ei gh t s gre at l y i n exces s of D r. S ei w ert ’ s e st i m at e. A n o th e rr e a s o n p r o f

f e r e d b y th e A L J is th a t th e o th e rr e c o r d s r e f e r e n c e d in D r . S e iw e rt’s tr e a tm e n t n o te s d o n o t s u p p o r t h e rc o n c lu s io n s . C f . B ayl iss v. B a rn h a rt , 4 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( d iscr ep an cies b etw ee n a d o cto r’s ow n n ot es and con clusi on s c on st i tut e acl ear and conv i nci ng re as on t o rej ec tthat do ct or’ s opi ni on ). T he di agno se s i n D r. B ra ck’ s r eportar e f arm ore s ub du ed than D r. S ei w ert ’ s. F or exam pl e, D r. B ra ck ac kn ow l edged b ac k p robl em s, bu top i ned tha tH ur t e rw a s notac a ndi da t e f ors ur ge ry a nd i ns t e a d pr opos e d aw a l ki ngP a ge 8 of 12 pr ogr a m . H e a l s o not e d a n abi l i ty t o f orw a r d f l e x w i th he rf

i nge r s t o he rt oe s a nd su g g est ed o n l y th atH u rt er “ t ak e p recau t i o n s b en d i n g an d l i ft i n g . ” T h ese di sc re panci es i n the tre atm entno t es ar e aspec i fi c and l egi t i m at e r ea son t o rej ec t D r . S e i w e rt ’ s opi ni on. T he A L J c hos e t o c r e di tgr e a t l y the opi ni ons of D r s . R a o a nd M e rr i l l . A s the di s tr i c tc ourtnot e d, H urt e rc a nnotpr ovi de ac om pe l l i ng r e a s on w hy thi s de c i s i on w as error. L i kew i se she c om pl ai ns thatthe A L J f ai l ed t o d i sc uss c ert ai n m edi ca l r e p o r ts , b u t th e o p in io n s s h e c ite s a r e n o t s ig n if ic a n t p r o b a tiv e e v id e n c e . See V i ncent v. H ec kler , 7 3 9 F. 2 d 1 3 9 3 , 1 3 9 4

– 9 5 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 4 ) ( h o l d i n g th a tALJ n e e d o n ly d is c u s s s ig n if ic a n t p r o b a tiv e e v id e n c e ) . “W h e r e a s h e r e , m e d ic a l r e p o rts a r e i nc onc l us i ve , que s t i ons of c r e di bi l i ty a nd r e s ol ut i on of c onf l i c t s i n the t es t i m on y are funct i on s s ol el y of the [C om m i ss i on er ] . ” Sa m pl e v . Schw eike r , 694 F . 2d 63 9, 64 2 (9th C i r. 19 82 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). H urt e rne xta r gue s tha tthe A L J f a i l e d t o c ons i de ra l l of

he rs e ve r e a nd nonsev ere i m p ai rm en t s w h en assessi n g h er R F C . T h i s co n t en t i o n g i v es u s p au se because i tdo es appear thatthe A L J m ayhave fai l ed t o con si der the t ot al i ty of her i m pai rm ent s a tthi s s t age of hi s anal ys i s. W e hol d, ho w ever , thatany f ai l ure w as harm l es s e rr or.P a ge 9 of 12 S oci al S ec uri ty R ul i ng 96 -8p i s c l ear thatthe A L J m ustconsi der a l l of a cl ai m ant ’ s i m pai rm ent s duri ng the R F C as se ss m ent , no tj usttho se cl as si fi ed as

“ s e ve r e . ” “ W hi l e a‘ nots e ve r e ’ i m pa i rm e nt ( s ) s t a ndi ng a l one m a y not si gn i fi cant l y l i m i tan i nd i vi du al ’ s abi l i ty t o d o b as i c w ork act i vi t i es , i tm ay— w hen c o n s id e r e d w ith lim ita tio n s o rr e s tr ic tio n s d u e to o th e rim p a irm e n ts

— b e c r itic a l to the ou t com e of acl ai m . ” S S R 96 -8p, 19 96 W L 37 41 84 , at*5 (Jul y 2, 19 96 ). In h is R F C a n a ly s is th e A L J f a ile d to c o n s id e re x p lic itly H u r te r ’s a lle g e d im p a irm e n ts o f d ep ressi o n , an x i ety, a h ern i a an d an an k l e i n j u ry. T he A L J ’ s om i s s i on of

the s e i m pa i rm e nt s doe s notr e qui r e r e ve r s a l of the R F C a s s e s s m e ntbe c aus e a ny e rr orw a s ha rm l e s s . F i r s t , a l though the A L J di d not e x p lic itly c o n s id e rth e ab o v e im p a irm e n ts , h e s ta te d th a t h e h a d c o n s id e r e d a ll s y m p to m s in f

o rm u la tin g th e R F C . I n a d d itio n , th e s e f o u ra lle g e d im p a irm e n ts w e r e de voi d of

a l m os ta ny m e r i t . A s di s c us s e d su p ra , the onl ys uppor tf

or H u r te r ’s a lle g a tio n s o f

d e p r e s s io n a n d a n x ie ty w e r e h e ro w n s u b je c tiv e c o m p la in ts i n D r . S e i w e rt ’ s e va l ua t i on. H urt e rha d appa r e nt l y s uc c e s s f ul s ur ge ry t o r e m ove the herni a and a r adi og raph of her a nk l e f ra cture s ho w ed “ atm oston l y afe w m i l l i m e t e r s o f

d i s p l a c e m e n t . ” T h e AL J d i s c u s s e d th e s e v e ry r e a s o n s a ts t e p two w hi l e c l a s s i f

y i ng H urt e r ’ s de pr e s s i on, a nxi e ty , he rni aa nd a nkl e i nj ury a s nons e v e r e . Se e Stout

v . C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 45 4 F . 3d 10 50 , 10 54 –5 5 (9th C i r.P a ge 10 of 12 20 06 ) ( no t i ng thatA L J c om m i t s harm l es s e rr or w hen the m i st ake w as

“ nonpr e j udi c i a l ” or“ i rr e l e va nt ” t o the ul t i m a t e di s abi l i ty c onc l us i on) . G i ve n the m e a g e rm e d ic a l s u p p o rt f o rth e s e im p a irm e n ts , w e h o ld th a t th e A L J ’s f a ilu r e to consi der how these i m pai rm ent s m i gh tcom pl i ca t e H urt er ’ s other s ym pt om s w as harm l es s e rr or. IV H u rte rn e x t c h a lle n g e s th e A L J ’s d e c is io n to ap p ly M e d ic a l- V o c a tio n a l R u le 20 2. 20 , w hi ch di re ct s afi nd i ng of “ no tdi sabl ed. ” A pp el l anti dent i fi es three i ss ues a t s te p f iv e : th e f a ilu r e to c o n s u lt av o c a tio n a l e x p e r t, th e d e te rm in a tio n th a t s h e is capabl e of l i gh ti nst ea d o f s edent ary w ork and her c l as si fi ca t i on as a “ youn ger in d iv id u a l.” Fo rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b y th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , Hu r t e ri s c o rr e c tth a tth e ALJ shou l d h ave c on sul t ed a vocat i on al experton the i ss ue of her abi l i ty t o p er form other w ork exi st i ng i n si gn i fi cantnu m bers i n the nat i on al ec on om y. W here a c l a i m a ntha s e xe rt i ona l a nd non- e xe r t i ona l i m pa i rm e nt s , the A L J c a nnotr e l y on the g r id s a lo n e to f

in d th e c la im a n t n o t d is ab le d . L o u n sb u rry v. B a rn h a rt , 468 F . 3d 1111, 1115–16 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . T he di s tr i c tc our tw a s c orr e c ti n r e m a ndi ng the ca se t o the A L J on thi s i ss ue.P a ge 11 of 12 H urt eri s w rong , ho w ever , thatthe A L J e rr ed i n d et erm i ni ng thatshe w as capabl e of l i gh tw ork. B ec ause her a rgum ent s m er el y r ei t er at e herchal l enge t o h er R F C f in d in g , o u rd e te rm in a tio n th a t th e A L J d id n o t e rrap p lie s h e r e a s w e ll. See Stubbs - D ani e l

s on v . A s tr ue , 53 9 F . 3d 11 69 , 11 75 –7 6 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). T he A L J di d e rri n de t e rm i ni ng H ur t e r ’ s a ge . I ns t e a d of us i ng he ra ge on the d a te s h e f

ile d h e rap p lic a tio n , th e A L J s h o u ld h a v e u s e d h e ra g e o n th e d a te o f h is d e c is io n . See R usse l l

v. B ow en , 856 F . 2d 81, 84 ( 9th C i r . 1988) . O n r e m a nd, the A L J s houl d c a l c ul a t e H urt e r ’ s a ge on the da t e of the ne w de c i s i on. See B ray v . C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 554 F . 3d 1219, 1229 n. 9 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . A f t e rhe o b ta in s av o c a tio n a l e x p e rt’s te s tim o n y a s to w h a t k in d o f w o rks o m e o n e w ith H ur t e r ’ s l i m i t a t i ons c a n do, the A L J s houl d c ons i de rthi s upda t e d a ge t o de c i de w h e th e rs h e c a n f

in d w o rkin th e n a tio n a l e c o n o m y . See V al ent i ne v. C om m ’rSo c. Se c . A dm i n. , 57 4 F . 3d 68 5, 68 9 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). V B ec ause subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the A L J’ s anal ys i s a tst ep tw o and at the R F C st age, w e a ff

i rm . W e thu s r ej ec tH urt er ’ s r equestt o rem and for an aw ar d o f b e n e f its . See B en ecke v. B a rn h a rt , 3 7 9 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 3 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). T h i s case i s r e m a nde d t o the A L J a s or de r e d by the di s tr i c tc our tf orpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt w i th the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd thi s m e m or a ndum di s pos i t i on.P a ge 12 of 12 AF F I RME D a n d RE MAND E D.