N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LISA L. GEHRINGER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-16170 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00317-SR B 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 Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 8, 2016 ** B e fore : PR EGER SON, LEAVY, a n d OW ENS, C irc u it Judge s. Lisa L. Ge hringe r a

ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s orde r a ffirm i ng the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. At step five of the se que n tia l e va l uation proc e s s, the a dm inistra tive la wjudge (ALJ) de te rm i ne d tha t 

# FIL ED JUN 10 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Ge hringe r c ould pe rform jobs tha t e xist in signific ant num

be rs in the nationa l e c onom y . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012), a nd we re ve rse and re m and. The ALJ e rre d in giving little or som e we ight to the

c ontra dic te d opinions of tre a ting prim ary

c are phy sic ia

n Dr. Thom a s Fie l, tre ating rhe um at ologist Dr. Jose ph Ha

bros, tre a ting phy sic ia

n Dr. Philip Zinni, tre ating psy c hiatrist Dr. La uro Am e z c u a -Pa tino, a

nd tre a ting c ounse lor Lisa Gratton. TheALJ fa ile d to provide spe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons, supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , for pa

rtia lly re je c ting the se opinions. Se e Vale ntine v . C omm’r Soc
. Se c Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 692 (9th C i r. 2009). The ALJ’ s proffe re d re a s ons for re je c t ing the s e opinions were unsupporte d by

the la w or unsupporte d by the re c ord. Se e Garrison v
. C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th C ir. 2014) (sta ting tha t the ALJ m

ust se t forth his own inte rpre tations a

nd e xpla in why

the y , rathe r tha

n the tre ating sourc e s’ , a

re c o rre c t); Ghanim v . C

olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1161-62 (9th C ir. 2014) (e xpla ining tha t note s indic a ting im

prove m e nt or te m

p orary c e ssation of sy

m ptom s m ust be re a d in c onte xt of the ove ra ll dia gnostic proc e dure and do not pre c lude a finding of disa bility). The ALJ a lso e rre d

by fa iling to (1) provide

c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for re je c ting thec re d i bility

of Ge hringe r's sta

te m e nts re g arding he r sym ptom s, a nd (2)
1 4
- 1 6 1 7 0 2ide n tify

whic h fa c ts in there c ord supporte d the re je c ting of he r sym

ptom te stim ony . Se e Smole n v . C hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ The ALJ
m ust sta te spe c ific a l ly

whic h sy m ptom te s tim ony

is not c re d ible and wha

t fa c ts in the re c ord le a d to tha

t c onc lusion.” ); s e e also Brow n-Hunte r v . C

olv in , 806 F.3d 487, 493-95 (9th C ir. 2015) (e xpla ining tha t a n ALJ’ s provision of a

sum m ary of the m e dic a l e vide nc e supporting her RFC finding is not the “ sort of e xpla

nation or kind of spe c ific re a sons” tha t a re ne c e ssa

ry for this C o urt to re vie wthe ALJ’ s de c ision). The ALJ e rre d in c onc luding tha t the te stim ony

of La ura La Strange did not inc l ude a d ditiona l lim ita

t ions whe re La Stra

n ge re p orte d tha

t Ge hringe r ha d lim ita tions tha t we re inc o n siste n t with a n R FC to pe rform

the full ra

nge of light work. S e e Molina , 674 F.3d a

t 1114 (e xpla ining tha

t the ALJ m

ust givere a sons that are ge rm ane to e a c h witne s s to disc ount c om pe te n t la y witne ss te stim ony ). Although the ALJ’ s re a s oning la c ks the re quisitespe c ific ity and c la rity , it is not c le ar from

the a dm inistra

tive re c ord tha

t the ALJ would bere q

uire d to a ward be ne fits if Ge hringe r’ s sy m ptom te stim ony

we re c re dite d a

nd the tre ating sourc e s’ opinions were re -e va l uate d in light of the re le va nt fa c t ors. Tre ic hle r v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ Whe re the re is c o nflic ting e vide nc e , a

nd not a ll e sse n tia l fa c tua l issue s ha ve be e n re solve d, a

re m and for a

n
1 4
- 1 6 1 7 0 3award of be ne fits is ina ppropria te .” ). Ac c ordingly , we re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

1 4
- 1 6 1 7 0 4