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.

T he H onor abl e J a ne tC . H a l l , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** D i s tr i c tof

C onne c t i c ut , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT T R AC Y S I S S ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I CHAEL J . ASTR UE, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 35246 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 5 7 3 8 - RBL 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 W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R ona l d B . L e i ght on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 6, 201 * S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: S IL V E R M A N and M U R G U IA , C i rc ui tJudg es , and H A L L , D i stri ct Judg e. ** T r a c yS is s o n ap p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h e rap p lic a tio n f

o rd is ab ilityb e n e f

its . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt's 

# FI LED JU N 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

d eci si o n u p h o l d i n g th e C o m m i ssi o n er' s d en i al o f b en efi t s de no vo . E dlun d v. M a ssa n a ri , 253 F . 3d 1152, 1156 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . W e r e ve r s e the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve la w ju d g e 's d e c is io n o n lyw h e n it is n o t s u p p o rte db ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o ris b a s e d o n le g a l e rr o r . Id . S is s o n c o n te n d s th a t th e A L Jc o m m itte dle g a l e rr o rb yf a ilin g to f

u llyc r e d it h e rte s tim o n yab o u t th e in te n s ity , p e r s is te n c e , a n dlim itin g e f f e c ts o f h e rtr e m o r s . W e a gr e e . T he A L Js houl d notha ve di s c ount e d S i s s on’ s t e s t i m onyaboutthe l i m i t i ng e f

f e c t s of he rtr e m or s ba s e d on he rr e port e d a c t i vi t i e s be c aus e none of the e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d c o n tr a d ic ts h e ra s s e rtio n th a t h e rtr e m o r s a r e o n ly in te rm itte n tlys e v e r e lylim itin g . L es terv. Cha ter , 81 F . 3d 82 1, 83 4 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) . N ext , S i ss on cont ends thatthe A L J’ s r es i du al funct i on al capaci ty ( “ R F C ”) a s s e s s m e nti s nots upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . W e a gr e e . T he A L Jdi d not se t fo rth leg it im ate r ea so n s f o r a ttrib u ti n g li m it ed w eig h t t o D r. D u ck w o rth ’s o p in io n th a t S is s o n is lim ite d to s e d e n ta rye x e rtio n b yh e rc e r e b r a l p a ls y . T a c ke tt v. Apf el , 1 8 0 F .3 d 1 0 9 4 , 1 1 0 2 - 0 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ; L es ter , 81 F . 3d a t830- 31. T he A L J a l so fa i l ed t o p rovi de spec i fi c and l egi t i m at e r ea sons supp ort ed by subst ant i al e v id e n c e to r e

je c t D r . W h e e le r ’s d ia g n o s is o f b o r d e r lin e in te lle c tu a l f u n c tio n in g .3

T a c ke tt , 1 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 2 - 0 3 ; L es ter , 81 F . 3d a t830- 31. L a s t l y , the A L Je rr e d by f a ilin g to a d d r e s s o rr e s o lv e th e p o te n tia l c o n f lic t b e tw e e n th e te s tim o n yo f G a il S is s o n a n d D r . K e s tin g . See L ew is v . Apf el , 23 6 F . 3d 50 3, 51 1 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). O th e re rr o r s m a d e b yth e A L Jin d e te rm in in g S is s o n ’s R F C w e r e h a rm le s s . S peci fi ca l l y, the A L J’ s m i sc hara ct er i za t i on of S i ss on ’ s c er ebra l pal syas hi st ori ca l and h i s m i st ake i n rec ou nt i ng the re sul t s of D r. K es t i ng ’ s s pel l i ng exam i nat i on ar e b o th h a rm le s s e rr o r . Stout v . C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 4 5 4 F .3 d1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 ( 9 th C i r. 20 06 ). S i s s on c ont e nds tha tthe A L Jm a de f urthe re rr or s i n de t e rm i ni ng he rR F C by fa i l i ng t o m ent i on spec i fi c pi ec es of evi dence fr om the re po rt s of D r. M ay er s, D r. B r e m e r , D r . D o w n e s , a n d G a il S is s o n . T h e e v id e n c e to w h ic h S is s o n p o in ts w o u ld n o t h a v e a d d e d s ig n if

ic a n t, p r o b a tiv e v a lu e w h e n c o n s id e r e din c o n ju n c tio n w ith o th e re v id e n c e th a t th e A L Jd is c u s s e s , a n dth e r e f o r e th e A L Jw a s n o t r e q u ir e dto d is c u s s th e s e p ie c e s o f

e v id e n c e s p e c if

ic a lly . V i ncent exre l. V i ncent v. H ec kler , 73 9 F . 2d 13 93 , 13 94 -95 (9th C i r. 19 84 ). F in a lly , S is s o n c o n te n d s th a t th e A L Je rr e db yd e te rm in in g th a t s h e c o u ld re turn t o h erpastre l evantw ork as aho usekee per, because he m ade that de t e rm i na t i on w i thoute s t abl i s hi ng tha ts uc h w ork c ons t i tut e d s ubs t a nt i a l ga i nf ul4

ac t i vi ty. A l tho ug h w e dec l i ne t o d ec i de thi s i ss ue because i tw as no tra i se d b ef ore the di s tr i c tc ourt , w e a r e tr oubl e d bythe A L J ’ s f a i l ur e t o pr ope r l ya ddr e s s the r e c or d on w he the rS i s s on’ s pa s tr e l e va ntw ork c ons t i tut e d s ubs t a nt i a l ga i nf ul a c tiv ity . 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 7 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) ; L e w is , 2 3 6 F .3 da t 5 1 5 - 1 6 . I n l i ghtof

the s e e rr or s , w e r e ve r s e the de c i s i on of the di s tr i c tc ourta nd in s tru c t it to r e m a n d th is c a s e to th e A L Jf o rf u rth e rd e te rm in a tio n s c o n s is te n t w ith thi s de c i s i on. R E VE R S E D an d R E MAND E D.