N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UZM A SHAHID B U TT,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-55695 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-05690-JC G
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia J ay Ga n d hi, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 5, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B ER ZON, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Uz m a B utt a ppe a ls the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt a ffirm ing the Soc ia l Se c urity C om m i ssione r’ s de nia l of B utt’ s a pplic at ion for disa

bility be ne fits. R e vie wing the C om

m issione r’ s de nia l of be n e fits de novo, se e C arillo-Ye ras v . 

# FIL ED FEB 28 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Astrue , 671 F.3d 731, 734 (9th C ir. 2011), we re v e rse an d re m an d to the distric t

c ourt with instruc tions to re m and to theAdm inistra tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ). 1. The te stim ony

of voc a tiona l e xpe rt Aida W orthington did not c onflic t with theDic tiona

ry of Oc c u pat iona l Title s (“ DOT” ). The DOT c la ssifie s the job of pre s c hool te a c h e r a s re quiring fre que nt re a c h ing, DOT 092.227-018, but doe s not spe c ify the fre que n c y

of ove r-the -shoulde r re a c hing. W orthington e xpla ine d tha t, while re a c hing ge ne ra lly

is “ c la ssifie d a s fre que nt,” ove r-the -shoulde r re a c hing spe c ific a lly

is “ ve ry rare ” and c ould “b e pe rform e d with e ithe r uppe r e xtre m ity .” Se e Gutie rre

z v . C olv in , 844 F.3d 804, 808 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ [N] ot e v e ry job tha t involve s re a c hing re quire s the a bility to re a c h ove rhe a d.” ). Eve n if B utt wa s una ble to pe rform

any re a c hing with her right a rm , the re is no e vide n c e tha t he r le ft
arm ha s a ny lim i tations with a

bove -shoulde r re a c hing. Thevoc ationa l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony re ga rding B utt’ s a

bility to pe rform

he r pa st work a s a

pre sc hool te a c he r is thus c o nsiste nt with the DOT. The ALJ the re fore ha d no c onflic t to re s olve , se e SSR 00-4p, a nd prope rly

re lie d on W orthington’ s te s tim ony . 2. The ALJ e rre d , howe ve r, in disre ga rding the m e dic a l opinion of
e xam ining phy sic ia

n Dr. Va gha

rshak Pilossy an . Dr. Pilossy an c onduc te d a
c om ple t e phy sic a l e x am ination of B utt a nd m a d e inde pe nde nt c linic a l findings.

“ [W ] he n an e xam i ning phy s ic ia

n provide s ‘ inde pe n de nt c l inic a l findings . . .,’ suc h

2findings a

re ‘ substa ntia l e vide n c e .’ ” Orn v
. Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th C ir. 2007) (c ita

tions omitte d ). Dr. Pilossy an’ s July

2013 phy sic a l a sse ssm e nt wa s a lso broa dly c o nsiste nt with Dr. Ali Dini’ s De c e m be r 2013 phy sic a l a s se s sm e nt, whic h the ALJ re je c te d a s not c re dible on the ba sis tha t it wa s inc onsiste nt with Dr. Dini’ s e arlie r Nove m be r 2012 a sse ssm e n t. B ut diffe re n c e s be twe e n Dr. Dini’ s Nove m b e r 2012 a

nd De c e m b e r 2013 a sse ssm e nts do not re nde r the two a sse ssm e nts inc onsiste n t: B utt’ s phy sic a l c ondition c ould ha ve de te riora

te d ove r the c ourse of m ore tha n a y e ar. 1 The ALJ e rre d in re

je c ting Dr. Dini’ s 2013 a s se ssm e n t, whic h in turn provide s support for Dr. Pilossyan’ s a sse ssm e nt. Fina lly , Dr. Pilossy an’ s te stim ony doe s not c onflic t with the a sse ssm e nts of Dr. Se ung Ha

Lim or Dr. Frie dm an. As to Dr. Lim , Dr. Lim e xam i ne d B utt in Nove m be r 2012; a ga in, B utt’ s c ondition c ould ha ve worse n e d

be twe e n Nove m

be r 2012 a nd la te July 2013, whe n Dr. Pilossy an e xam ine d he r. Furthe r, the ALJ did not provideany

“ spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons . . . supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e ,” a s she wa s re q u ire d to do, for c re diting Dr. Lim ’ s opinion over that of tre a ting phy sic i a

n Dr. Dini. Se e Ghanim v . C o l v in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th C ir.

1 The ALJ a lso a s se rte d tha t “ the re is no e vide n c e the c la im a n t ha s be e n tre a te d or e va luate d by

Dr. Dini sinc e Nove m

b e r 2012.” In fa c t, Dr. Dini’ s De c e m b e r 2013 a sse ssm e nt indic ate d tha t he sa w B utt “ e ve ry

2-3 m o nth[s] .” 32014) (inte rna l quota t ion m a rks om itte d). As to theState Age nc y m e dic a l
c onsulta nt, Dr. Frie d

m an, he did not e xam i ne B utt. The opinions of e xam ining phy sic ia ns like Dr. Pilossy an a

re ge ne ra lly

give n gre ate r we ight tha

n those of
re vie wing phy sic ia

ns like Dr. Frie dm an. 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c )(1); se e Leste r v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C ir. 1995). B e c a use the ALJ did not provide le gitim ate re a sons for re

je c ting Dr. Pilossy an’ s m e dic a l a sse s sm e nt, we c re dit tha t opinion a s a

m atte r of la

w, Le ste r , 81 F.3d a t 834 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ), and re m and to a llow theALJ to prope rly we igh Dr. Pilossy an’ s opinion in its ste p four a na ly sis. S

e e 42 U.S.C . §§ 1381 e t se q. 3. The ALJ a lso e rre d in finding B utt not c re dible a s to he r subje c tive pa in te stim ony . The ALJ found tha t B utt’ s a l le ge d phy s ic a l lim ita tions we re inc o nsiste nt with the m e d i c a l e vide nc e . B ut the obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e did show a m e nisc us te ar in the le ft kne e , m e nisc a l de ge ne ra t ion in theright kne e , a la rge te ar of the supe rior la brum in the right shoulder, and a m ild disk protrusion in the l um ba r spine
. Additiona lly , the ALJ pointe d to suppose d inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n B utt’ s sta te m e nts a nd he r da ily

a c tivitie s. The ALJ note d tha t B utt a n d he r son c l a im e d that , “ due to he r phy sic a l im pa irm e nts, she ha s signific ant diffic u lty pe rform ing
4re gula

r da ily a c tivitie s,” y e t, at

the sam e tim e , B utt “ a d

m itte d she is still a

ble to
e nga ge in som e sim

ple m e a l pre pa

ration, light house

work, a nd oc c a siona l shopping
and soc ia l a c tivitie s ” and suppose dly “ inc onsiste ntly

told Dr. B a gne r she ha d no diffic u lty with pe rsona l se lf-c are a c tivitie s, wa s a ble to shop a

nd c ook, a

n d wa s a ble to tra ve l by c ar with som e one e lse driving.” The s e sta te m e nts a re not inc o nsiste nt. First, B utt’ s sta te m e nts to Dr. B a gne r we re m a de in 2010, be fore the fa ll tha t she argue s c a

use d he r le ft kne e proble m s a nd be fore the e nsuing kne e surge ry . Se c o n d, B utt’ s a lle ge d diffic ulty pe rform ing re gula

r a c tivitie s is not inc o nsiste nt with he r none the le ss oc c a siona lly pe rform ing thosea c t ivitie s with diffic u lty . For e xam

p l e , B utt’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t she is a ble to do ve ry ba sic food pre p aration suc h a s boiling a n e gg is e ntire ly

c onsiste nt with he r a sse rtion tha t she
c an “ [f] e e d se l f ok” but c annot “pre pa re m e a ls e ve ry d ay ” a s she use d to. Fina lly , the ALJ’ s de t e rm ination, on the ba sis of two psyc hiatric e va luations, that B utt did not ha

ve any “ s e ve re m e nta l im

pa irm e nt,” doe s not support a
c onc lusion tha

t B utt is not c re dible . Ne ithe r Dr. B a gne r’ s Oc tobe r 2010
e va luation, dia gnosing B utt with de pre ssive disorde r, nor Dr. Sim onia n’ s Nove m be r 2012 e va luation, noting tha t B utt pe rform e d poorly

on form a l m e m ory te sting a nd func t ione d at 61 out of 100 unde r the Dia gnostic and Sta

tistic a l M anua l of M e nta l Disorde rs (DSM -IV) sta nda rd, is inc o n siste nt with the sta te m e nts m a de
5by

B utt a nd he r son tha

t she fre que ntly

fe e ls tire d, la c king in e n e rgy , “ foggy ,” and

“ spa c e d out.” Although B utt’ s psy c hiatric im pa irm e nt m a

y not be “ se ve re ” e nough to qua lify he r a s disa

ble d on tha

t ba sis — B utt m a inta ins on a ppe a l tha t this c a se turns on he r phy sic a l lim ita t ions only — he r subje c tive te s tim o ny

is not inc o nsiste nt with the e vide nc e in the re c ord a nd so doe s not c onstitute

a ba s is for
an a d ve rse c re dibility

finding. As the ALJ fa ile d to ide n tify any le gitim at e ba sis to find Dr. Pilossy an’ s a sse ssm e nt or B utt’ s subje c tive te stim o ny not c re dible , we re m and to thedistric t
c ourt with instruc tions to re m and to theALJ to prope rly c onside r those e le m e nts
and, if ne c e ssa

ry , to proc e e d to step five of the se q ue ntia l e va luation proc e dure
. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

6