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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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 D A W N E. SA M PLES, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C OMMI S S I ON E R OF S OC I AL S E C UR I T Y A DMI NI S T R AT I ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 35586 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 9 -cv -0 6 1 5 2 -JO 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 D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon R obe rtE . J one s , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d and S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r18, 2011

P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: F IS H E R , P A E Z , an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es.

D a w n S a m pl e s appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta f f i rm i ng the de ni a l of d is ab ilityb e n e f

its b yth e C o m m is s io n e ro f th e S o c ia l S e c u r ityA d m in is tr a tio n . W e v acat e i n p artan d affi rm i n p art , an drem an dfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. 

# FI LED JAN 12 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSP age 2 of 4

W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo a di stri ctcourt ’ s orderup ho l di ng a dec i si on by the S oci al S ec uri ty C om m i ss i on er th a t d e n ie s b e n e f

its to a n ap p lic a n t. B at

s on v . C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 359 F .3 d1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . S am pl es chal l enges the A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw Judg e’ s ( A L J) as se ss m entof her r e s i dua l f

unc t i ona l c apa c i ty( R F C ) , s pe c i f i c a l l yhi s f

a i l ur e t o i nc orpor a t e af i ndi ng m a d e b yD r . J a m e s W a h l o n a“c h e c k - o f f ” f o rm th a t S a m p le s is m o d e r a te lyto m a rk e d lylim ite d in h e r“ab ilityto a c c e p t in s tru c tio n s a n dr e s p o n dap p r o p r ia te lyto cr it icism fr o m su p er v iso rs .” “[A ]n R F C th at fa il s to tak e in to ac co u n t a claim an t’ s l i m i t at i on s i s def

ec t i ve. ” V

ale nt i ne v . C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 574 F . 3d 685, 6 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . T h e A L Jm u s t d e te rm in e ac la im a n t’s lim ita tio n s o n th e b a s is o f “a ll r e le v a n t e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d .” R obbi ns v . Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 466 F . 3d 8 8 0 , 8 8 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H e r e , th e A L Je rr e d b yn o t in c lu d in g a ll o f S a m p le s ’ lim ita tio n s in h is as se ss m entof her R F C . In part i cul ar , the A L J’ s a ss es sm enti m prop er l y i gn ored D r . W a h l’s d e s c r ip tio n a n d d ia g n o s e s o f af u n c tio n a l lim ita tio n o n S a m p le s ’ ab ility t o accep ti n stru ct i o n s fro m su p erv i so rs an dt o resp o n dap p ro p ri at el y t o cri t i ci sm f r o m s u p e rv is o r s , r e n d e r in g th e R F C d e f e c tiv e . Se e V

ale nt i ne , 5 7 4 F .3 da t 6 9 0 .P age 3 of 4

T h i s l i m i t at i o n w as n o tco v ered b y th e l an g u ag e i n th e R F C d i scu ssi n g S am p l es’ generaldi ff

i cul ty w i th t aki ng cr i t i ci sm i n the w orkp l ac e. Be c au s e th e RF C wa s d e f e c t i v e , th e h yp o th e t i c a l q u e s t i o n th a tth e ALJ pos e d t o the voc a t i ona l e xpe rtr e ga r di ng S a m pl e s ’ abi l i tyt o f i nd w ork i n the n a tio n a l e c o n o m yw a s a ls o d e f e c tiv e a n dm u s t b e r e f

o rm u la te do n r e m a n dto in c lu d e a ll o f

S a m p le s ’ lim ita tio n s . See , e . g. , i d. ; E m breyv. B ow en , 849 F . 2d 418, 42 2 (9th C i r. 19 88 ). T he A L Jw a s r e qui r e d t o c ons i de rS a m pl e s ’ i m pa i rm e nt s i n c om bi na t i on th r o u g h o u t th e d is ab ilityd e te rm in a tio n p r o c e s s a n dd e te rm in e if h e rim p a irm e n ts me to re q u a l e d o n e o f

th e l i s t e d i mp a i rme n t s a t2 0 C. F. R. Pa rt4 0 4 , Su b p a rtP, A ppe ndi x 1. See 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 3 ; se e al so L es terv. Cha ter , 81 F . 3d 821, 828 ( 9th C i r . 1995) . T he r e c or d r e f l e c t s tha tthe A L Jdi d s o, e ve n i f he di d not di sc uss e xp l i ci t l y the i nt er ac t i on betw ee n h erph ys i ca l i m pai rm ent s and her m ent al i m pai rm ent s. T he A L J noton l y not ed thathe w as re qu i re d t o con si der her im p a irm e n ts in c o m b in a tio n , b u t s ta te de x p lic itlyin tw o p la c e s th a t h e h a dd o n e s o . A d d i t i o n al l y, S am p l es d i d n o tm eeth er b u rd en o f sh o w i n g th ath er i m p ai rm en t s, a lo n e o rin c o m b in a tio n , e q u a l o rm e e t o n e o f th e lis te dim p a irm e n ts . See T a c ke tt v. Apf el , 18 0 F . 3d 10 94 , 10 98 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). T here fore , the A L J w as no tre qu i re d t o d i sc uss how the com bi ned effe ct s of S am pl es ’ i m pai rm ent s m i gh tm ee tor equalP age 4 of 4

alis tin g . See B u rch v. B a rn h a rt , 4 0 0 F .3 d6 7 6 , 6 8 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; L ew is v . Apf el , 2 3 6 F .3 d5 0 3 , 5 1 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s h o ld in g th a t th is a r g u m e n t la c k s m e r it. T he di s tr i c tc ourti s di r e c t e d t o r e m a nd thi s c a s e t o the C om m i s s i one rf or proceedi ng s c on si st entw i th thi s m em orandu m di sposi t i on . T he part i es shal l bear th e iro w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. AF F I R ME D i n p a rt , VA C AT E D i n p a rt , a n dR E MAND E D.