NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JANET THOMSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-35152

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01790-BR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 9, 2022**

Portland, Oregon

Before: PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,

*** District Judge.

Janet Thomson (“Thomson”) appeals the district court’s judgment affirming 

the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability 

* 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).

*** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge 

for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153-

54 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). We vacate and remand for further 

proceedings. 

1. The ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Whitehead’s findings because they were

“based on a claimant’s self-reported limitations at a one-time event.” This does 

not constitute a “specific and legitimate reason,” especially because the ALJ failed 

to reason with the fact that Dr. Whitehead’s opinions were also based on a clinical 

review of Thomson and a mental health status examination. Buck v. Berryhill, 869 

F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th Cir. 2017) (reasoning that “the rule allowing an ALJ to reject 

opinions based on self-reports does not apply in the same manner to opinions 

regarding mental illness.”). “These are objective measures and cannot be 

discounted as a ‘self-report.’” Id. Accordingly, the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. 

Whitehead’s findings is not supported by substantial evidence.

2. The ALJ likewise failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for 

discrediting Thomson’s testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms. 

“Where, as here, an ALJ concludes that a claimant is not malingering, and that she 

has provided objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which might 

reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms alleged, the ALJ may reject the 

claimant's testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, 
3 

clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 

487, 492-493 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

The ALJ failed to specify what evidence she relied on to discount 

Thomson’s testimony that she could not lift more than 10 pounds, that her acute 

pancreatitis keeps her in bed for 12-hour periods, or that she can sit for no longer 

than an hour, among other matters to which Thomson testified. “Because the ALJ 

failed to identify the testimony she found not credible, she did not link that 

testimony to the particular parts of the record supporting her non-credibility 

determination.” Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 494. The ALJ therefore committed 

reversible error on this ground alone. See id. (concluding this error was harmful 

because “we cannot discern the agency’s path” without “any reviewable reasons” 

for the credibility determination).

The ALJ’s holding that Thomson’s treatment, which has consisted of 

intrusive surgeries, repeat visits to the emergency room for urgent operations and 

various prescription medication for her pain, was “conservative” is unsupported by 

the record. Cf. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007); Johnson v. 

Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). Moreover, to the extent the ALJ

relied on any alleged improvement in Thomson’s treatment, the ALJ failed to

square that with Thomson’s pre-surgery symptoms which also fall within the 

alleged onset disability period. See Smith v. Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108, 1114 (9th 
4 

Cir. 2021); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2014)

(explaining that an ALJ’s finding of “a course of improvement” must be based on 

“data points” that “in fact constitute examples of a broader development”). 

3. Finally, the ALJ erred in failing to give germane reasons for rejecting the 

testimony of Thomson’s mother, Wanda Willis. At step four of the sequential 

analysis, the ALJ discredited Willis’s testimony because it was “not consistent 

with the preponderance of medical and other evidence of record, as well as the 

opinions and observations by medical and mental specialists in this case.” 

“In determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider lay 

witness testimony concerning a claimant’s ability to work.” Stout v. Comm’r Soc.

Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). If an ALJ 

disregards the testimony of a lay witness, the ALJ must provide reasons “that are 

germane to each witness.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

The ALJ’s general statement that Willis’s testimony is inconsistent with the 

record is not a reason that is germane to Willis. This was legal error. The ALJ 

cannot discredit lay witness testimony simply because it is not “supported by 

medical evidence in the record.” Diedrich v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 634, 640 (9th Cir. 

2017) (citation omitted) (reasoning that the “fact that lay testimony and third-party 

function reports may offer a different perspective than medical records alone is 

precisely why such evidence is valuable at a hearing.”); see also Bruce v. Astrue, 
5 

557 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009). The ALJ therefore erred in discounting 

Wanda Willis’s testimony. 

The ALJ’s errors were not harmless because they were not 

“inconsequential” to the ultimate disability determination. See Stout, 454 F.3d at

1055. Had the ALJ properly evaluated Thomson and Willis’s testimony and Dr. 

Whitehead’s findings regarding Thomson’s mental health impairments, the ALJ 

might well have found that Thomson is disabled. We vacate the district court’s 

judgment with directions to remand to the agency for further proceedings 

consistent with this disposition. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.