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 by 9th 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 M ARY BAK EW EL L, 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. 08- 35991 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 2 9 5 - BR 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 A nnaJ . B r ow n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r10, 2009

P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: F A R R IS , D . W . N E L S O N an d B E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a ry B a ke w e l l appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de ra f f i rm i ng a n A dm i ni s tr a t i ve L a w J udge ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tB a ke w e l l w a s notdi s abl e d a nd the r e f or e not e nt i t l e d t o S oc i a l S e c ur i ty di s abi l i tybe ne f i t s . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d w e r e v e r s e . 

# FI LED JAN 04 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

“ W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderaf fi rm i ng the A L J’ s deni al of soci al s e c ur i ty be ne f

i t s de novo, a nd w i l l di s turb the de ni a l of be ne f i t s onl yi f

the de c i s i on cont ai ns l egal error or i s notsupp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. ” T om m aset t iv. A s tr ue , 5 3 3 F .3 d1 0 3 5 , 1 0 3 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A t s te p tw o o f

th e s e q u e n tia l p r o c e s s f o re v a lu a tin g d is ab ility , 2 0 C .F .R . § 40 4. 15 20 (a )( 4)(i i ), the A L J c on cl ud ed thatB akew el l ’ s m i grai nes w er e nota s ever e i m pai rm ent . T he A L J’ s c on cl usi on thatB akew el l ’ s m i grai nes r em ai ned u nd er e xc e l l e ntc ontr ol w i th m e di c a t i on i s nots upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . T he re cord i nd i ca t es w i tho utcontra di ct i on thatB akew el l ’ s m i grai nes i ncapaci t at ed her f o rs e v e r a l d a y s a n d th a t h e rp e r s is te n t s y m p to m s w e r e n o t c o n tr o lle d e f f e c tiv e ly w i th m e di c a t i on. A c c or di ngl y , the r e i s no s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport i ng the A L J’ s posi t i on thatB akew el l ’ s m i grai nes do n ot“ si gn i fi cant l y l i m i t [] [her ] ph ys i ca l or m ent al abi l i ty t o d o b as i c w ork act i vi t i es , ” 20 C . F . R . § 4 04 . 15 20 (c ), as th e A L J’s c o n clu sio n w as b as ed u p o n th e e rr o n eo u s f ac tu al fin d in g th at B ak ew ell’ s m ig r a in e s a r e u n d e rc o n tr o l. F urtherm ore, the A L J di d n otprov i de “ spec i fi c and l egi t i m at e r ea sons that ar e s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence i n the re cord, ” L es terv. Cha ter , 81 F . 3d 821, 830–31 ( 9th C i r . 1995) , f orr e j e c t i ng the opi ni on of

B a ke w e l l ’ s e xa m i ni ng phy s i c i a n, D r . R obe rt s . T he A L Jdi d notc r e di tD r . R obe rt s ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof3

l i m i t a t i ons on B a ke w e l l ’ s r e pe t i t i ve us e of he rha nd, nordi d the A L Jpr ovi de a ny re as on t o rej ec tthi s a ss es sm ent . B ec ause the A L J i gn ored the op i ni on of D r. R o b e rts e n tir e ly , th e A L Je rr e d . Se e id . T he A L Jpr e di c a t e d hi s rul i ng tha tB a ke w e l l i s notdi s abl e d on the e rr one ous f a c tua l f i ndi ng r e ga r di ng B a ke w e l l ’ s m i gr a i ne s , a nd he c om m i tt e d l e ga l e rr orby i gn ori ng the fi nd i ng s of D r. R ob ert s. W e there fore re vers e the order of the di stri ct c o u rt a n d r e m a n d w ith d ir e c tio n s to r e a s s e s s B a k e w e ll’s c la im c o n s is te n t w ith th is di s pos i t i on. R E VE R S E D A ND R E MAND E D.