N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR ILYN T. HOUSE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-15028 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-02065-NVW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

10, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, R EINHAR

DT, a nd TASHIM A, C irc uit Judge s. M arily n House argue s tha

t the distric t c o urt a

buse d its disc re tion, Harman v
. Apfe l , 211 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th C ir. 2000), in re m anding he r c la im to the ALJ for furthe r proc e e dings ra

the r tha n for a n a ward of be ne fits. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
JUL 14 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 . 36-3.1. It is not dispute d tha t House suffe re d from

fibrom y a lgia , lum

ba r spine de ge ne ra tive disc dise a se , oste oa rthritis of the

ha nds, a nd dive rtic ulitis. 1 The que stion is whe the r the se c onditions were se ve re e nough to pre ve n t work a nd, if so, whe n the y

gre w se ve re e nough to re nde r House disa ble d. 2 W e a gre e with the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t the ALJ fa ile d to offe r le ga lly suffic ie nt re a sons for disc re diting Dr. Fa irfa x, House ’ s tre a ting phy sic ia n,
and for a dopting the

opinion of Dr. Disne

y , who did not e xam ine House . W e a lso
a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t the ALJ fa ile d to offe r le ga lly suffic ie nt re a sons for re je c ting House ’ s te stim ony a bout he r sym

p tom s. Fina lly , we a gre e with the distric t c o urt’ s c o n c lusion tha t the se e rrors we re not ha rm le ss, a s the ALJ
a c knowle dge d tha

t if Fa irfa x or House we re c re dite d, the ALJ would bere quire d to find tha t House wa s disa

ble d, a nd the n to c a lc ulate and a ward be ne fits. 2. As we e xpla in in Garrison v . C olv in , the c re dit-a s-true rule a pplie s only whe n thre e c onditions a

re m e t: “ (1) the re c o rd ha s be e n fully de ve lope d a

nd furthe r
a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings would se rve no use ful purpose ; (2) the ALJ ha s fa ile d

1 B e c a

use House die d on De c e m be r 16, 2010, this a

ppe a l c o nc e rns only the c lose d -pe riod disa

b ility insura nc e be ne fits tha

t he r surviving c hildre n c la im on he r be ha l f. Se e 20 C
. F.R . § 416.542(b); 20 C
. F.R . §§ 404.350 to 404.368.

2 W e re solve m any of the argum e n ts ra ise d by the pa rtie s c onc e rning the c re dit-a s-true rule in a n opinion in Garrison v

. C olv in , No. 12-15103, issue d c onc urre ntly he re with. 2to provide le ga lly suffic ie nt re a sons for re

je c ting e vide nc e , whe the r c la i m ant te stim ony or m e dic a l opinion; a

nd (3) if the im

prope rly disc re d ite d

e vide nc e we re
c re d ite d a s true , the ALJ would bere quire d to find the c la im ant disa

ble d on
re m and.” W e furthe r e xpla in in Garrison that the third of the se c onditions

“ inc orporate s what we have som e tim e s de sc ribe d a s a distinc t re quire m e nt of the
c re d it-a s-true rule , nam e l y tha t the re are no outsta

nding issue s tha

t m u st be
re solve d be fore a

de te rm ination of disa

bility c an be m a de .” 3. He re , e ve n if we we re to c re dit a s true both Fa i rfa x’ s opinion a nd House ’ s te stim ony , a

n an a ly sis tha

t would re quire us to c onc l ude tha t House wa s, in fa c t, disa

ble d, we c ould not de te rm ine from those c re dite d-a s-true opinions w he n House be c am e disa

ble d
. 3 Soc ia l Se c urity

re gula tions m ak e c le ar that de t e rm ination of a disa bility onse t da t e is a c om

ple x a nd fa c t-spe c ific inquiry
. Title s II & XVI: Onse t of Disability , 1983-1991 Soc . Se c . R e p. Se rv. 49 (S.S.A. 1983), 1983 W L

3 House ’ s tre a tm e n t re c ords from 2003 through 2005 re

ve a l tha t he r sym ptom s of c hronic fa tigue and fibrom y a lgia -a ssoc iat e d pa in be ga n in tha t pe riod and quic k ly

inc re a se d in se ve rity , but a l so show tha t the se se ve re sy

m p tom s we re e ffe c tive ly

tre a te d by

m e dic ation for a

t le a st pa rt of the pe riod. Only

in M arc h 2008 did Fa irfa x opine tha t House suffe re d m ode rate l y se ve re im p a irm e nts, a

n opinion tha

t doe s not, on its fac e , purport to de sc ribe he r le v e l of im pa i rm e n t ove r the p rior se ve ra l y e a

rs, but ra the r only he r im pa irm e nts a s of M arc h 2008. Nor did House , in he r te stim ony , c la rify e x a c tly whe n he r sy

m ptom s be ga

n or whe n the y re a c he d a le ve l of se ve rity

suffic ie nt to qua l ify he r a s disa ble d. Fina lly , ne ithe r the ALJ nor the voc a tiona l e xpe rt offe re d a ny opinion a bout whe n in tim e House ’ s sym ptom s would ha

ve pre c lude d he r from work.

331249, a

t *2-3. And in c a se s like House ’ s, “ the onse t da te is c ritic a l; it m ay

a ffe c t the p e riod for whic h the individual c an be pa id a nd m a y e v e n be de te rm inative of whe the r the individual is e ntitle d to or e ligiblefor any be ne fits.” Id. a t

*1. This c a se is the re fore c ontrolle d by Re ge nnitte r v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , in whic h

we c onc l ude d

tha t a c la i m ant’ s te stim ony

and he r doc t or’ s opinion should ha

ve be e n c re dite d, a

nd tha t doing so would ha

ve re quire d a

finding of disa bility and a re m a n d for pa ym e nt of be ne fits, but tha t the unre solve d issue of that c la im ant’ s disa

b ility onse t da te pre ve nte d suc h a re m and. Se e 166 F.3d 1294, 1300 (9th C ir. 1999); s e e also Luna v . Astrue , 623 F.3d 1032, 1035 (9th C ir. 2010) (c onc l uding tha

t re m and for a

n a ward of be ne fits unde r the c re dit-a s-true rule wa s
unwa rrante d due to the “ outsta n ding issue ” of “ whe n

Luna ’ s disa

bility be ga n” ). Ac c ordingly , he re , a s in Re ge nnitte r , we “ re m and this c a se to the C om m issione r for re solution of [the

disa bility onse t da

te issue ] , a

nd for a n ultim a te disposition
c onsiste n t with this [dete rm ination] .” Se e 166 F.3d a t 1300.

AFFIRM E D.

4