NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVLEEN NOTALI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 17281
D.C. No. 2:13

- cv - 01766

- MHB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michelle H. Burns, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 6, 2017 ** Pasadena, California Before: BEA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, ** * Senior District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 9 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Evleen Notali appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits

. Notali argues that the administrative law judge (“ ALJ ”) erred in assigning “little weight” to the findings of her treating physician, Dr. Atul Syal , and in finding her not credible. W e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and vacate the judgment of the district court, with instructions to remand for further administrative proceedings.
1. The ALJ did not err in assigning “little weight” to Dr. Syal’s opinion

. In general, “ [t] o reject an uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining doctor, an ALJ must state clear and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Lester v. Chater , 81 F.3d 821, 830

– 31 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, if a “treating source medical op inion is not well

- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record,” the treating physician’s opinion “ is not entitled to

‘ controlling weight. ’ ” Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 631

– 32 (9th Cir. 2007) ( quoting S.S.R. 96

- 2p at 4); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. And, “ [i] f a treating or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion,” the ALJ can reject it, but only by “providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Garrison v. Colvin , 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th3

Cir. 2014) ( quoting Ryan v. Comm ’ r of Soc. Sec. , 528 F.3 d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008)). Here, the ALJ highlighted several, sufficient reasons to find Dr. Syal’s findings were unsupported by “medically acceptable . . . techniques,” Orn , 495 F.3d at 632, “ in consistent with other substantial evidence in the case record,” id. at 631, and “contradicted by another doctor’s opinion,” Garrison , 759 F.3d at 1012. The ALJ did not merely “reject[] [Dr. Syal’s] medical opinion . . . while doing nothing more than ignor ing it, asserting without explanation that another medical opinion is more persuasive, or criticizing it with boilerplate language that fails to offer a substantive basis for his conclusion.” Id. at 1012

– 13. Rather, he provided several “specific and legi timate reasons . . . supported by substantial evidence” for assigning “little weight” to Dr. Syal’s findings

. I d. at 1012

. 2. The ALJ erred in finding that Notali ’s testimony about her symptoms was not credible

. Because there is no evidence of malingering , t he ALJ can reject an applicant’s testimony “ about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) ( quoting Smolen v. Chater , 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996)). “The clear and convincing standard is the most demanding required in Social Security cases.” Garrison , 759 F.3d at 1015 (quoting Moore v. Comm ’ r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)). “ A finding th at a4

claimant’s testimony is not credible ‘must be sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude the adjudicator rejected the claimant’s testimony on permissible grounds and did not arbitrarily discredit a claimant’s testimony regarding pain .’” Brown

- Hunter v. Colvin , 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bunnell v. Sullivan , 947 F.2d 341, 345

– 46 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) ). “General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidenc e undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Id. (quoting Reddick v. Chater , 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998)). Here, although the ALJ provided a detailed discussion of the evidence , he did not “ specifically identify the testimony

. . . he [found] not to be credible” and did not “ explain what evidence undermine[d] the testimony.” Holohan v.
Massanari , 246 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the ALJ erred when he failed to provide specific, clear and convincin g reasons for his credibility determination. 1
3. When a court determines that the Commissioner erred, “ the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” Treichler v. Comm ’ r of Soc. Sec . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion , 470 U.S.

1 Any “inconsistencies identified independently by the district court cannot provide the basis upon which we can affirm the ALJ’s decision.” Brown

- Hunter , 806 F.3d at 494.5

729, 744 (1985)). “ A remand for an immediate award of benefits is appropriate . . . only in ‘rare circumstances.’” Brown

- Hunter , 806 F.3d at 495 (quoting Treichler , 775 F.3d at 1099). Because t his is not one of those rare circumstances , we remand for further administrative proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED , WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS .N

otali v . Be rry h ill , No. 15-17281
B EA, C i rc uit Judge , disse nting:
I a gre e with the m a

jority tha t the ALJ did not e rr in a ssigning “ little we ight” to Dr. Sy a l’ s opinion. Unlike the m a jority , howe ve r, I would hold tha t the ALJ did
not e rr in finding tha

t Nota li’ s te stim ony

a b o ut he r sy m

ptom s wa s not c re dible

. In we ighing a

c la im a nt’ s c re dibility , the ALJ m a y c onside r m a ny

fa c tors, inc l uding “ (1) ordina

ry te c hnique s of c re dibility

e va lua t ion, suc h a s the c l a im a nt’ s

re puta tion for ly ing, prior inc onsiste nt sta te m e nts c onc e rning the sy m p tom s, a nd
othe r te stim ony

by t he c la im a nt tha

t a p pe a rs le ss tha

n c a ndid; (2) une xpla ine d or
ina d e qua te ly

e x p la ine d fa ilure to se e k

tre a tm e nt or to follow a

pre sc ribe d c ourse of
tre a tm e n t; a

nd (3) the c la im a nt’ s da ily a c tivitie s.” Smole n v . C

hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th C ir. 1996). In e va l ua ting the c re dibility of the sy m

ptom te stim ony , the
ALJ a lso c onside rs “ the c la i m a nt’ s work re c ord a nd obse rva tions of tre a ting a nd

e xa m ining phy sic ia

ns a nd othe r third pa

rtie s re ga rding, a m ong othe r m a tte rs, the

na ture , onse t , dura tion, a

nd fre que nc y

of the c la im a

nt’ s sy m ptom , pre c ipita

ting a nd

a ggra v a t ing fa c tors; [a

nd] func tiona l re stric tions c a use d by the sy m ptom s.” Id.
W hile a n ALJ m a y

not re je c t a c la i m a nt’ s sta

te m e nts a bout the inte nsity

a nd
pe rsiste nc e of he r sy m

ptom s sole ly

be c a use the y a re not substa

ntia t e d by the obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e , 20 C .F.R . § 404.1529(c )(2), the ALJ m ust c onside r 

# F IL ED

AUG 09 2017
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1whe the r the re a re a ny inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n the c la im a nt’ s sta te m e nts a nd the

m e dic a l e vide nc e whe n de te rm ining the e xte nt to whic h sy m ptom s a ffe c t a

c la im a nt’ s c a

pa c ity to pe rform

ba sic work a c tivitie s, se e 20 C .F.R . § 404.1529(c )(4).
He re , the ALJ de te rm ine d tha t the “ o bje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e of re c ord d[id] not support the

se ve rity ” of Nota li’ s subje c tive c om pla ints. The ALJ de ta ile d

num e rous m e dic a l te sts a

nd e va lua tions tha

t he c onside re d to be inc onsiste n t with
Nota li’ s a lle ge d l y

disa bling lim ita tions. The se te sts showe d m ild to m o de ra te de ge ne ra tive disc dise a se a nd no obvious ne rve root c om

pre s sion. For insta

nc e , a 2010 M R I of the lum

ba r spine showe d

“ m i ld to m ode ra te spondy losis a nd disc bulge s produc ing m ild infe rior fora m ina l na rrowing, prim a

rily on [the ] le ft side .”
The ALJ a lso disc usse d a n inde pe nde nt c onsulta

t ive phy s ic a l e xa m ina tion by Dr. B ria n B riggs. “ Dr. B riggs note d the re we re no obje c tive findings to support
the c la i m a nt’ s subje c tive c om pla ints, a nd ga ve no lim i ta tions.” For insta n c e , “ [t] he
ba c k wa s norm a l , with ne ga tive spina l pa lpa tion, no te nde rne ss or de form ity , a nd

norm a l ra nge of m otion of the c e rvic a l, thora c ic , a nd lum ba r spine .” The ALJ

c onc lude d tha

t “ Dr. B riggs’ re sults on c onsulta tive e xa m ina tion we re c onsiste nt with the m e dic a l e vide nc e of re c ord, a n d supportive of the opinions a nd

c onc lusions of the

Sta te a g e nc y

m e dic a l c onsulta

nt.”

2M ore ove r, the ALJ c onside re d se ve ra l re ports tha t Nota li’ s sy

m ptom s im prove d with tre a tm e nt. He note d tha t Nota l i “ ha d good re sults for he r

c om pla i nts of ne c k

a n d low ba c k pa in with se ve ra l tria ls of phy sic a l the ra py .” In support of this obse

rva tion, the ALJ c ite d m e dic a l re c ords from Ape x Phy sic a l
The ra p y , whic h sta

te d tha t Nota li ha d im

prove d ra n ge of m otion, stre ngth, a nd

re duc e d pa in in he r c e rvic a l spine , a s we ll a s im p rove d func tion a

nd ra nge of

m otion in he r lum

ba r spine , a fte r unde rgoing phy sic a l the ra py
. The ALJ a lso c onside re d re ports of Nota li’ s da ily a c tivitie s. Se e 20 C .F.R . § 404.1529(c )(3)(i). The ALJ note d tha t he r re porte d da ily

a c tivitie s— shopping,

c ooking, a

tte nding c hurc h, visiting fa m ily a nd frie nds, driving he r da ughte r to

sc hool a nd to the pa

rk, a nd pe rform ing house hold c hore s with

a ssista nc e

— d e m onstra

t e d m ore tha

n a m i nim a l le ve l of func tioning.
I would thus hold tha

t the ALJ did not e rr in finding tha t Nota li’ s te stim ony

a bout he r sy

m ptom s wa s not c re dible . I the re fore re spe c tfully disse nt.

3