N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIAM R W H ITE, Jr., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35313 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00590-JPD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s P. Donohue II, M a gistra t e Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 26, 2014 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : WARDLAW , GOULD, a n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc u it Judge s. W illia m White a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the Soc ia l Se c urity C om m i ssione r’ s de nia l of disa bility be ne fits. W

hite argue s tha

t the a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) e rre d by im prope rly de t e rm i ning tha

t White wa s not c re dible and by ignoring the la y te stim ony

of his wife . W e hav e jurisdic tion



# FIL ED OCT 14 2014 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.pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a gre e with W

hite . Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the d istric t c o urt’ s a ffirm anc e of the de nia l of be ne fits a nd re m and for a

ne w he aring be fore the ALJ. 1. The ALJ’ s c onc l usion tha t White ’ s te stim ony

wa s not c re dible is not supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). W

he re , a s he re , a

c la im ant ha s produc e d “ obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e of an unde rly ing im

p a irm e nt whic h c ould re a sona bly be e xpe c te d to produc e the . . . sy m ptom s a lle ge d

. . . a n d the re is no e vide nc e of m a linge ring, the n the ALJ m ust givespe c ific , c le a

r and c onvinc ing re a s ons in orde r to re je c t the c la i m ant’ s te stim ony a bout the se ve rity

of the sy m ptom s.” Id. a t 1112 (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). 1 The ALJ re je c te d White ’ s te stim o ny a s to the “ inte nsity , pe rsiste nc e and de gre e , ” of his im pa irm e nts a s inc onsiste nt with his phy sic i an re ports. Howe ve r, the e xam ple s give n by

the ALJ we re not inc o nsiste nc ie s at a ll but we re e ntire ly

c onsiste n t with W

hite ’ s te stim ony

at the he aring a s to his m e nta l and phy sic a l im

pa irm e nts a

nd a lc ohol de pe nde nc e . For e xam ple , the ALJ found

“ m ost striking”

a suppose d c la im

by White tha

t a lc ohol ha d nothing to do with his

1 B e c a use White e xplic itly

argue d be fore the distric t c ourt tha t the ALJ’ s c re d ibility

finding wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , the distric t c ourt e rre d in de e m ing W

hite ’ s c h a lle nge to the ALJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding wa ive d. 2de pre s sion a nd suic ida l ide a tion. B ut this wa s ta king out of c onte x t a

sta te m e nt in his te stim ony

a bout wha t he would te ll hospital sta ff de pe n ding on whe the r he wante d to be re le a se d . In a ddition, the ALJ im prope rly disc re dite d White for a lle ge dly fa iling to follow a

tre a tm e nt re g im e n whe n White wa s una ble to a fford som e re c o m

m e nde d tre a tm e nts, se e Gamble v . C hate r , 68 F.3d 319, 321 (9th C ir. 1995), a nd the re c ord de m onstra

te s tha t White oc c a siona lly

sought too muc h tre a tm e n t, not too little . The re m a inde r of the purporte d inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n W hite ’ s re p orte d da ily a c tivitie s a nd White ’ s sta

te m e nts re ga

rding thosea c t ivitie s, to the e xte nt the y

are inc onsiste nc i e s at a ll, a re e xpla i ne d by

White ’ s de t e riorating c ondition. There fore , the ALJ fa ile d to give “ spe c ific , c le a

r a nd c onvinc ing re a s ons” for c onc luding tha t White wa s not c re dible . Se e Molina , 674 F.3d a t 1112 (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). 2. The ALJ a lso e rre d

by fa iling to e xpla in he r re a sons for disre ga rding the la y witne ss te stim o ny

of White ’ s wife , id. a t 1115, a nd by fa iling to disc

uss it a ltoge the r. White ’ s wife c onfirm e d White ’ s te stim ony by , for e xam

ple , supporting his c la i m tha t he “ just c an’ t le ave the house ” for e xte nde d pe riods of tim e . La y witne s s te stim o ny

tha t e xpla ins a

c l a im ant’ s sy

m ptom s and how the y

a ffe c t his a bility to work sim

ply “ c annot be disre ga

rde d without c om

m e nt.” N guy e n v . C hate r , 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th C ir. 1996). 33. W e the re fore re ve rse and re m and with instruc tions to the distric t c ourt to re ve rse the ALJ’ s de c ision finding W hite not disa

ble d a nd re m and to theSoc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion for a ne w he aring. 2 RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

2 W e do not a ddre ss W

hite ’ s c la im

tha t the ALJ e rre d by

not a pply ing the two-ste p a

na ly sis a rtic ulate d i n Bustamante

v . Massanari , 262 F.3d 949 (9th C ir. 2001). Tha

t a na ly sis is ne c e ssa

ry only if the ALJ de e m s White disa ble d on re m and. 4