N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KENNETH FITZGER

ALD PALM ER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16886 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01786-JAT
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 Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Nove m

b e r 19, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W

ARD LAW , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ke nne th Pa lm e r (“ Pa lm e r” ) a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the A dm i nistra

t ive La w Judge ’ s (“ ALJ” ) de nia l of supple m e nta l se c urity inc om e (“ SSI” ) be ne fits. W e re v e rse an d re m and. 

# FIL ED
JAN 04 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 . 36-3.1. The ALJ fa i le d to prope rly ana l y z e the m e dic a l opinion te stim ony . M ost im porta ntly , the ALJ’ s de c ision did not disc uss the opinion of Pa lm e r’ s tre ating psy c hologist, Dr. V. Abhy anke r. This wa s e rror. An ALJ m ay not “ av oid the []
re quire m e nts” of providing spe c ific and le g itim ate re a sons for re je c ting a doc tor’ s opinion “ sim

ply by not m e ntioning the

tre ating phy sic i an’ s opinion.” Linge nfe lte r
v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1038 n.10 (9th C ir. 2007); se e also Marsh v . C olv in , 792 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th C ir. 2015). The fa ilure to c onside r Dr. Abhy anke r’ s te stim ony wa s not ha

rm le s s be c a

use the voc ationa l e xpe rt (“ VE” ) te stifie d tha t with thelim ita

tions Dr. Abhy a

nke r ide ntifie d, Pa lm e r would be una ble to susta in
e m ploy m e nt. 2. The ALJ’ s im

prope r re je c tion of Dr. Abhy anke r’ s opinion wa s c om pounde d by two a dditiona l e rrors. First, substa n tia l e v ide nc e doe s not support the ALJ’ s de c ision to disc ount tre ating pa in spe c ia list Dr. John Porter’ s a sse s sm e nt tha t Pa lm e r’ s pa in would “ fre q ue n t ly ” inte rfe re with a

tte ntion a nd c o nc e ntration. Eve n Dr. B re nt Ge ary , a

sta t e a ge nc y doc tor whose opinion the ALJ c la im e d
c ontra dic te d Dr. Porte r’ s a sse ssm e nt, note d tha t Pa lm e r e xhibite d “ signific ant diffic u lty with orie ntat ion, m a inte na nc e of atte ntion a

nd c onc e ntration.” Thus,
c ontra ry to the ALJ’ s finding, the

re c ord did support Dr. Porte r’ s pa in a sse ssm e nt.
2This e rror wa s not ha rm le s s be c a

use the VE te stifie d tha

t a pe rson with the
c onc e ntration limita

tions ide ntifie d in Dr. Porte r’ s pa in a s se ssm e nt, c om bine d with Pa lm e r’ s phy sic a l lim ita

tions, would “

hav e diffic ulty

susta ining e m

ploy m e nt.” 3. Se c ond, the ALJ e rre d by disre ga rding Pa lm e r’ s subje c tive pa in te stim ony in the a bse nc e of m a linge ring without giving “c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons, supporte d by e vide nc e in the re c ord.” Brow n-Hunte r v . C olv in , 806 F.3d 487, 489 (9th C ir. 2015). TheALJ pointe d to the “ a sse ssm e n ts of the sta te a ge nc y m e dic a l
c onsulta nts” a s supporting his re

je c tion of Pa lm e r’ s pa in te stim ony . B ut those
c onsulta nts foc use d on Pa lm e r’ s m e nta l im pa irm e nts a

nd m a d e no spe c ific findings
a bout his pai n le ve ls. Thus, the ir a sse ssm e nts do not c onstitute “ c le ar an d
c onvinc i ng e vide nc e .” This e rror wa s not ha rm l e ss be c a

u se the VE te stifie d tha

t a pe rson with “m ode ra t e ly

se ve re pa in” like tha

t de sc ribe d by

Pa lm e r “ c ould not susta in e m

p loy m e nt on a n ongoing ba sis.” 4. B a se d on the e rrors ide ntifie d a bove , we re ve rse and re m and for a n a ward of be ne fits. The re c ord in this c a se , whic h inc lude s the opinions of m ultipletre ating phy sic ia ns, ha s “ be e n fully

de ve lope d a

nd furthe r a d

m inistra t ive proc e e dings would se rve no use ful purpose .” Garrison v . C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th C ir. 2014). The ALJ “ fa ile d to providele ga lly suffic ie nt re a sons for re

je c ting” Dr.
3Abhy a

nke r and Dr. Porte r’ s opinions a nd Pa lm e r’ s te stim ony . Id. The te stim ony of the VE m ake s c le ar that “ if the im prope rly disc re dite d e vide nc e we re c re dite d a s true , the ALJ would be re q uire d to find [Pa lm e r] disa b le d on re m and.” Id. B e c a use the re c ord a s a

whole doe s not “ c re ate [] se rious doubt tha t [Pa lm e r] is, in fa c t , disa ble d,” id. at 1021, a

re m and for a

n a ward of be n e fits is a

ppropria te . RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

4