NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL W. ANGEVINE, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Com m issioner of Social Security, * * Defendant - Appellee. No. 11-15678 D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01496-GSA
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal fromthe United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Subm itted October 10, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Paul W. Angevine appeals the district court’s judgm ent affirm ing the decision of the Acting Com m issioner of Social Security, which denied his 

# FILED
OCT 16 2013 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

* * Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Com m issioner of Social Security, is substituted for her predecessor, Michael J. Astrue, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).applications for disability insurance benefits and supplem ental security incom e,

pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416, 423, 1382c. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and
rem and with instructions. 1. As a prelim inary m atter, we m ust determ ine whether Angevine has waived his argum ents regarding the alleged failure of the adm inistrative law judge (“ALJ”) to consider his m ental im pairm ents because these argum e nts were not raised before the district court. While issues not raised below are generally deem ed waived, we nevertheless exercise our discretion to reach the m erits of Angevine’s claim because “the issue presented is purely one of law and . . . the pertinent record has been fully developed.” Greger v. Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, given the Acting Com m issioner’s opportunity to respond to the argum ents Angevine now raises, she “will suffer no prejudice as a result of the failure to raise the issue in the trial court.” Raich v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 850, 868 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, in light of the clarity and nature of the legal error alleged, we find that review of the issue is “necessary to avoid a m anifest injustice.”

1 The Appeals Council declined Angevine’s request for review. Thus, the ALJ’s decision becam e the final decision of the Acting Com m issioner of Social Security for purposes of this appeal. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481. 2Greger , 464 F.3d at 973 (quoting Meanel v. Apfel , 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir.

1999)) (internal quotation m ark om itted). 2. We conclude that, as a m atter of law, the ALJ erred in failing to address Angevine’s colorable claim of m ental im pairm ent. Step two of the five-step sequential process by which an ALJ determ ines whether an applicant is disabled requires the ALJ to evaluate the severity of an applicant’s im pairm ent or
com bination of im pairm ents. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). In doing so, an ALJ m ust evaluate an applicant’s m ental im pairm ents via a special psychiatric review technique outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a, 416.920a when the applicant has a “colorable claim of m ental im pairm ent.” Keyser v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin. , 648 F.3d 721, 726 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting G utierrez v. Apfel , 199 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation m arks om itted). The record dem onstrates that Angevine possessed a colorable claim of
m ental im

pairm ent. He received two positive screens for post-traum a tic stress disorder (“PTSD”), was diagnosed with PTSD, was encouraged to attend a PTSD treatm e nt program , and was referred to a m ood disorder group “to work on m ild depression.” He asserted before the ALJ that he was unable to work “because of depression and [his] alcoholism ,” and estim ated that he had sought psychiatric 3treatm e nt twice a m onth on average over the previous year. Despite this record,

the ALJ discussed none of the evidence relating to Angevine’s alleged m ental im pairm ents, and offered none of the findings or conclusions required by the special psychiatric review technique. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(b)–(e), 416.920a(b)–(e). This error was not harm less. Keyser , 648 F.3d at 726. We reject the Acting Comm issioner’s contention that even if the ALJ erred in this regard, Angevine has nonetheless failed to establish the existence of any
m ental im

pairm ents. It is not for us to gauge on appeal the extent and severity of Angevine’s m e ntal im

pairm e nts. Rather, that task falls to the ALJ in the first instance, and must be com pleted through the application of the special psychiatric review technique. See id. at 725. Accordingly, we reverse the judgm ent of the district court with instructions to rem and to the ALJ for a proper review of Angevine’s m ental im pairm ents. We need not address any other issues raised on appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

4