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

JENNY R OC HA, Pla intiff - 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. 13-36028
D.C . No. 2:12-c v-03036-FVS

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Fre d L. Va

n Sic kle , Se nior Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 9, 2015 Se a ttle , W a s hington
B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s. Je nny R oc ha a

p pe a l s t he distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion’ s (“ SSA” ) de nia l of he r a pplicat i on for Soc ia l Se c urity disa bility be ne fits. W e re ve rse a nd re m a nd for the Adm i ni s t r ative La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) to

re c o nside r R oc ha ’ s r es i d ual func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ R

FC ” ) a nd to c a ll a voc a tiona l



# FIL ED

DEC 17 2015

M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is n o t ap p r o p r i a te for public a tion 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.e xpe rt to de te rm ine if R oc ha can s t il l pe rform j obs t ha t e xist in signific a

n t num be rs in the na tiona l e c onom

y . 1. The ALJ e rre d by fa iling t o c a ll a v oc a tiona l e xpe rt. V oc a tiona l e xpe rts a re

re quire d whe n non-e x e r tiona l lim ita tions a re suffic i e ntly se ve re a s to signific a ntly

e rode the oc c upa tiona l ba se
. Hoopai v
. A strue , 499 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th C ir. 2007).
It is true tha t m a ny of the non-e xe rtiona l lim ita tions found by the ALJ in this c a se d o
not signific a n tly e rode the unskille d, se de nta ry oc c u p a tiona l ba se
. Se e SSR 96-9p, a t *7-9 (postura l lim ita

tions on c lim

bing la d de rs, rope s, sc a ffolds; ba la nc ing; kne e ling;

cr o u c hing; c ra wling; stooping; a nd e nvironm e nta l lim i ta tions on e xtre m e c old, he a t,

we tne ss, h um idity , vibra

t ion, odor, or dust; or unusua l h a z a rds usua lly a re unlike ly to signific a ntly er o d e the unskille d, se de nta ry oc c u pa tiona l ba se ). Howe ve r, som e of
R oc ha ’ s n on-e xe rtiona l lim i ta tions m ight s ignific a ntly e rode the oc c upa ti o n al ba se
. Se e id. a t *7 ( l i m i te d a

bility to ba la

nc e w h e n sta

nding or wa lking on le ve l te rra in

m ight signific a ntly e rode t he o c c upa tiona l ba se ); id. a t *9 (lim ita tions on e xposure to noise or a “ le ss tha

n substa n tia l loss of a

bility ” to unde rsta

nd, re m e m

be r, a nd c a rry out sim ple instruc tions m a y

signific a ntly

e rode the oc c upa t iona l ba se ); s e e also SSR 85- 15, a t *6 (“ W he re the e ffe c ts of a pe rson’ s a c tua l lim ita tions o f c lim

bing a n d ba la nc ing o n t

he o c c upa t i o n al b a se a re diffic ult to de te rm ine , t he se rvic e s of a [ v o cat i o na l spe c ia list] m a y be n e c e ssa

ry .” ). Although e a c h of t he se l im ita

tions m a y

2ha ve a n eg l i g ible e ffe c t o n the unskille d, se de nta ry o c c u pa tiona l ba se whe n ta k e n individua lly , whe n c onside re d t oge t he r, t he que stion o f wha t jobs a re l e ft to R oc ha is

a c o m ple x o ne
. In suc h a situa tion, the ALJ should ha v e f ol l o we d the

re c o m m e nda tions of the SSA’ s own a dm inistra tive rulings a nd c a lle d a v o cat i o na l

e xpe rt. Se e

, e .g. , SSR 96-9p, a t *9 (“ In m o re c om p le x c a se s, the a djudic a tor m a y use the re sourc e s of a voc a tiona l s pe c ia list or voc a tiona l e xpe rt.” ); SSR 83-14, a t *4 (“ In

m ore c om ple x situa tions, the a ssista

nc e of a v oc a tiona l re sourc e m a y be ne c e ssa ry .” ).
2. The A L J a lso er r ed i n h i s a na ly sis of R oc ha ’ s c re d ibility

. To disre ga rd a

c la im a nt’ s te stim ony , the ALJ m ust a rtic ulat e s u f

f i c ie n tly spe c ific re a sons for t his

c ourt to c onc l u de tha t the ALJ did not a rbitra rily disc re dit t h e cl ai m ant’ s te stim ony
. Turne r v
. C

omm’r of Soc

. S

e c
. Adm i n
. , 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 & n .3 (9th C ir. 2010). Abse nt e vide nc e of m a linge ring, the A L J m ust h a v e “ c le a r a nd c onvi nc ing” re a sons for re je c ting te stim ony re ga

rding the se ve rity of sy m

p tom s. Vale ntine v
. C

omm’r Soc

. Se c
. Admin. , 574 F.3d 6 85, 693 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting Morgan v
. C omm’r of Soc

. Se c . Admin. , 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th C ir. 1999)).
T he A L J re

je c te d R oc ha ’ s te stim o ny re g a rding the na ture a nd se ve rity of h er
sy m ptom s in pa

rt b e c a u s e the re we re suppose dly g ap s in R oc ha ’ s t re a tm e nt for he a da c h e s. Howe ve r, the re a c tu al l y we re no signific a nt ga ps i n he r t

re a tm e nt for he a da c h e s. Sinc e tre a tm e nt ga ps a ppe a r to b e t he ALJ’ s sole re a son for re je c ting

3R oc ha ’ s te stim ony re g a r d i n g he a da c he s, a nd a finding tha t R oc ha ha d fre q ue nt a n d

c hronic he a da c he s c ould ha v e m a te ria lly c ha nge d he r R FC , a r em a nd for

re c o nside ra tion of this e vide nc e a t ste ps four a nd five is in orde r. 1
3. B e c a use R oc ha c ha l l en g es t h e A LJ’ s t re a t m e nt of Dr. Opa

ra ’ s opinion for the first tim e on a

ppe a l, the issue will no t b e co n s ide re d h e re
. Se e Matne y e x re l.
Matne y v . Sulliv an , 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th C ir. 1992).
4. B e c a use M r. De m ia

r is a ph y sic ia

n’ s a ssista

nt, a nd the re fore not a n

“ a c c e pta b le m e dic a l sourc e ,” 20 C .F.R

. § 404.1513(a ), (d), his opinion is n o t e ntitle d
to t he s a m e de fe re nc e a s a tre a ting phy sic ia n’ s o pinion. The ALJ ne e d only provide
ge rm a ne re a s ons for giving his opinion little we ight. Molina v
. Astrue , 6 74 F.3d 1104,
1111 (9th C ir. 2 01 2 )

. He re , a s ide from tre a tm e nt ga ps, whic h wa s not supporte d by the tre a t m e nt re c ords, the ALJ a lso pointe d out tha t no ne rve c onduc tio n t e st

s upporte d M r. De m i a r’ s dia gnosis of ra dic ulopa thy a nd the M R I of R oc ha ’ s lum b ar spine showe d only m ild a rthritis, whic h unde rc ut his opinion tha t he r sy m ptom s we re

so se ve re tha t s he w o u l d h av e to be a bse nt from work four t im e s pe r m onth.
Inc o nsiste nc y with m e dic a l e vide nc e is a ge rm a n e re a son for re je c t ing e vide nc e
. Se e

1 The re a lso we re no signif ic a nt tre a tm e nt ga

ps for R oc ha ’ s lowe r ba c k pa in. Howe ve r, th e A L J provide d othe r va lid re a sons for re j e c ting R oc ha ’ s te stim ony re ga rding l ow er ba c k pa i n , inc luding inc onsiste nc y with obje c t ive m e dic a l e vide nc e a nd with he r da ily living a c tivitie s. The re fore , the ALJ did not e rr in finding R oc ha ’ s lowe r ba c k pa in te stim ony not c re dible

. 4Bay liss v
. Barnhart , 42 7 F

. 3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ A n ALJ ne e d only give

ge rm a ne re a sons for d i sc re diting the te stim ony of l a y witne sse s. Inc onsiste nc y with

m e d ic a l e vide nc e is one suc h re a son.” (inte rna l c ita tions om itte d)). The re fore , the ALJ did not e rr in disc re diting M r. De m ia r’ s te stim ony
. 5. R oc h a fa i ls t o ex p l ai n on a ppe a l how the ALJ im

prope rly a na ly z e d the opinion of D r
. Ge ntile

. Argum e nts not c ohe re ntly de ve lope d in b rie fs on a

p pe a l a re de e m e d a ba ndone d. Se e Fe d. R

. App. P. 28(a )(8)(A); U nite d St a t es v. K

imble , 107 F.3d 712, 715 n.2 (9th C ir. 1997).
6. The ALJ prope rly c onside re d R o c ha ’ s obe sity a s the ALJ n ote d R oc ha ’ s obe sity in m a king his de te rm ina tions. Se e Burc h v
. Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 683-84 (9th C i r. 2005)

. The ALJ note d the re wa s little e vide nc e in the re c ord to sugge st
R oc ha wa s lim ite d by he r obe sity

. Though obe sity pre ve nte d doc tors from pe rform ing

a hy ste re c tom

y on R oc ha , the m a

jority of doc tors’ a s se ssm e nts e va l ua te d by the ALJ

m e re ly n ote d he r w e ight a nd found no lim ita tions due t o obe sity

. The re fore , the ALJ

a de qua te ly

c onside re d

R oc ha ’ s obe sity

in his de te rm i na tion.
RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

5