N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GER ALD G. EITNER , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-35948 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-05607-R AJ
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ha rd A. Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 2, 2021 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R , M c KEOW

N, a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. C la im ant Ge ra l d Eitne r a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the d e c ision of theC o m

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity de ny i ng his c la im

for disa bility be ne fits. Re v ie wing for substa ntia l e v i de nc e the Adm inistra tive La w Judge ’ s (" ALJ" ) fa c tua l findings, B ie ste k v. B e rryhill, 139 S. C t. 1148, 1154 

# FIL ED FEB 10 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.(2019), we re ve rse and re m and for re c onside ra tion.

1. The ALJ a

nd Appe a ls C ounc il did not err in e va luat ing the m e dic a l opinion e vide nc e . In disc ounting the opinion of the

phy sic ia n’ s a s sista

nt, M ike M y e rs, the y

gave ge rm ane re a sons, R e ve ls v. B e rryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th C ir. 2017), for doing so. 1 M y e rs’ s opinion wa s ina de quate ly supporte d a

n d inc o nsiste nt with m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord. 2. B ut the ALJ did not give spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons to disc re dit C la im ant’ s te s tim ony re ga rding thee xte n t, se ve rity , a nd lim iting e ffe c ts of his fibrom

y a lgia . Ga

rrison v. C olvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014–15 (9th C ir. 2014). C la im an t’ s te stim ony

a s to the se ve re pa in a

nd pe rsiste nt fatigue he e xpe rie n c e d a s
a re s ult of tha

t c ondition wa s c onsiste nt with the m e d i c a l e vide nc e . For e xam ple , C la im an t’ s rhe um atologist obse rve d tha t he ha d a " ve ry positive " te nde r point
sc re e n. M ore ove r, the ALJ fa ile d to c onside r possiblere a sons why C la im a nt did not
se e k or obta i n tre atm e nt, inc luding thepossiblela c k of e ffe c tive tre atm e nt for fibrom y a lgia an d the m anne r in whic h fibrom y a lgia inte ra c te d with his othe

r im pa irm e nts. SSR

16-3p, 2017 W

L 5180304, a

t *9 (Oc t . 25, 2017); se e a lso

1 At the tim e , M y e rs wa s not c onside re d a n " a c c e pta

ble m e dic a l sourc e ." 20 C .F.R . § 404.1513(d)(1)(2013) (a m e nde d 2017); M olina

v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th C ir. 2012). 2C arm ic k le v. C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . Adm in., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th C ir. 2008) (" [A] lthough a

c onse rvat ive c ourse of tre atm e nt c an unde rm ine a lle gat ions of de bilita ting pa i n, suc h fa c t

is not a prope r ba sis for re

je c ting thec l a im ant’ s
c re d ibility

whe re the c la i m a

nt ha s a good re a son for not se e king m ore a g gre ssive tre atm e n t." ). At the he aring, the ALJ a ske d C la im ant whe t he r he ha d re c e ive d a

ny spe c ific tre atm e nt for the c ondition, but the inquiry e n de d the re . The ALJ’ s om ission of fibrom y a l gia from

the list of se ve re im

pa i rm e nts a

nd disc re diting of C la im ant’ s te stim ony re ga rding the c ondition were not ha rm le ss
e rrors be c a

use , a s e xpla ine d be low, the ALJ did not me aningfully c onside r the phy sic a l lim ita

tions of theim

pa irm e nt in there m a inde r of his a na ly sis. B uc k v. B e rryh ill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2017); Stout v. C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . Adm in., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2006). Ha d the ALJ inc lude d fibrom y a lgia a s a se ve re im

pa irm e nt or c re dite d C la im ant’ s te stim ony a bout his sym ptom s, the re sult like ly

would ha ve be e n diffe re nt. Se e B urc h v. B a rnha rt, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th C ir. 2005) (" A de c ision of theALJ will not be re ve rse d for
e rrors tha t a re ham le ss." ). Eve n though the ALJ ga ve c onvinc ing re a s ons to disc re dit C la im ant’ s te s tim ony a s to the sym

ptom s c a use d by his othe r im pa irm e nts, inc luding sc l e ritis a nd gra nulom atosis with poly

angiitis, the

3fibrom

y a lgia -re late d e rror is still ha rm ful be c a

use it ne gat e s the va l idity of the ultim ate c re dibility

c onc lusion. C arm ic kle , 533 F.3d a t 1162–63. 3. Although the ALJ wrote tha t he c onside re d " the e ffe c ts of pa in from the possibility

of" fibrom

y a lgia in the re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (" R FC " )
a sse ssm e nt, C la im ant’ s phy sic a l lim ita tions (suc h a s his re duc e d sta m ina and pa in)
we re not m e a

ningfully re fle c te d . B e c a use the ALJ fa ile d to inc l ude a ll of the phy sic a l lim ita

tions de s c ribe d by

C la im ant re l ating to his fibrom y a lgia , the
e vide nc e did not support the R FC a sse ssm e nt a

n d ste p -five finding. Se e De Lorm e v. Sulliva n, 924 F.2d 841, 850 (9th C i r. 1991) (" If the hy pothe tic a l doe s not re fle c t
a ll the c la im ant’ s lim ita

t ions, we have he ld tha

t the e xpe rt’ s te stim ony

ha s no
e vide ntia ry va l ue to support a

finding tha

t the c la im ant c an pe rform jobs in the
nationa l e c o nom

y ." ). 4. The re c ord doe s not re quire the ALJ to find C la im ant disa ble d, e ve n if the
e vide nc e is re c onside re d in light of his fibrom y a l gia dia gnosis a

nd sy m ptom s. Thus, we re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. Ga rrison, 759 F.3d a

t 1020–21. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D
.

4