N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DENISE SALAZ, 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. 14-15699 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00704-SR B
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 Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 11, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, SC HR OEDER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. De nise Sa la z a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the de n ia l of he r a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e . W e re vie w the a d

m inistra tive la w judge ’ s (ALJ) de c ision without de fe re nc e to the distric t c o urt. Tac k

e tt v . Apfe l , 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th C ir. 1999). 

# FIL ED M AY31 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.The ALJ’ s de c ision is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e or fre e of le ga l
e rror. Se e Thomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th C ir. 2002). The re fore , we va c ate and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. The ALJ did not provide “ c le ar an d c onvinc ing” re a sons— supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e
— for giving minim a l we ight to the opinions of Sal a z ’ s two tre ating phy sic i a

ns. Se e Leste r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C ir. 1995). The ALJ wa s re quire d to a

rtic u late “ c le ar and c o nvinc ing” re a s ons for re je c t ing a ny portion of e ithe r tre ating phy sic ia n’ s opinion be c a

use she did not find tha

t e ithe r opinion wa s c ontra dic te d by anothe r phy sic i an’ s opinion. 1 Se e id. ; Garrison v
. C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th C ir. 2014). TheALJ ga ve m inim a l we ight to the tre ating phy sic i a

ns’ opinions on the

ba sis tha t the y we re not we ll-supporte d by
e vide nc e in the re c ord. Howe ve r, finding tha t a tre ating phy sic ia

n’ s opinions a

re not “ we ll-supporte d” by

m e dic a l e vide nc e m e re ly re l ie ve s the ALJ from

having to give the phy s ic ia

n’ s opinions “ c ontrolling we i ght.” Se e 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c )(2), (d)(2); Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th C ir. 2007).

1 Eve n if the ALJ ha d found tha t the tre ating phy sic ia

ns’ opinions were c ontra dic te d by o t

he r phy s ic ia

ns’ opinions, the ALJ still would ha ve be e n re quire d to provide“ ‘ spe c ific and le g i tim ate re a sons’ supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e in the re c ord” be fore re

je c ting the m . Le

ste r , 81 F.3d a

t 830. -2-The ALJ furthe r e xpla ine d tha t the tre at ing phy sic ia

ns’ opinions were

“ inc onsiste nt with the

e vide nc e in the re c o rd.” Howe ve r, the ALJ only pointe d to two pla c e s in there c ord tha t we re a lle g e dly

inc onsiste nt with the

tre ating phy sic ia ns’ opinions: (1) one phy sic ia n’ s sta te m e n ts e nc oura ging Sa la z to die t a nd
e xe rc ise to a c c om

p l ish we i ght loss a

nd (2) Sa la z ’ s re porte d im prove m e nts with tre atm e n t. Ne ithe r fa c t is c onvinc i ng. First, there c o rd shows tha t, a lthough Sa la z wa s e nc oura ge d to losewe i ght, he r phy sic i an re c om m e nde d die t a

nd low im

pa c t e xe rc ise s tha

t would not re q

uire he r to sta

nd or wa lk for m ore tha

n two hours per da y . Se c ond, a lthough Sa la z re p orte d inte rm itte nt im p rove m e nt with re ga

rd to he r a lle ge dly disa bling sy m ptom s , the re c ord shows tha t none of the im

prove m e nts we re signific a

n t or la sting. 2 2. The ALJ provide d spe c ific re a sons for finding Sala z not fully c re d ible , but those re a s ons a

re n o t c onvinc ing, be c a

use the y la c k support in the

re c o rd. Se e

2 The disse nt c ite s a dditiona l e vide n c e
— n o t re lie d on by

the ALJ—

to c ontra dic t the tre ating phy sic i ans’ opinions. Howev e r, the disse nt c ha ra c te riz e s the tre ating phy sic i a

ns’ opinions a

nd the m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c o rd diffe re ntly tha n we do. For insta

nc e , Sa la z ’ s phy sic ia

n did not opine

tha t Sa la z ha d thre e irrita ble b owe l sy

n drom e (IB S) e pisode s pe r day with e a c h e p isode la sting thre e hours (a n opinion tha

t w o u ld have be e n

an e xa g ge ra tion). The phy sic ia n opine d that Sa la zha d IB S sym

ptom s thre e tim e s pe r day and tha t toge the r Sa l a z ’ s IB S sym ptom s a nd he r fibrom

y a lgia pa in la ste d m ore tha

n thre e hours pe r day . Sa la z ’ s phy sic ia n’ s opinion is c onsiste nt with Sa la z ’ s e xpla nation of he r sym

p tom s a nd he r da ily a c tivitie s (whic h a

ppe ar to re volve around he r IB S sym ptom s ). Furthe r, the re c o rd shows tha

t Sa la z took m e dic ation for IB S throughout the re le va nt pe riod. -3-Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1112–13 (9th C i r. 2012). W e a gre e tha t the
m e dic a l re c ord c onta ins som e e vide ntia ry ga ps. Howe ve r, the e xisting m e dic a l
e vide nc e doe s not c o ntra dic t Sa la z ’ s pa in a n d sy m ptom te stim ony , a s the ALJ
c la im s. R athe r, Sa l a z ’ s te stim ony is la rge ly c onsiste nt with the

m e dic a l re c ords, he r tre ating phy sic i a

ns’ opinions, a

nd he r da ily

a c tivitie s. Although Sala z c ontinue d to work from

hom e a fte r quitting her la st job, the ALJ fa ile d

to e sta blish tha t Sa la z ’ s at-hom e work re s ponsibilitie s we re inc onsiste nt with a disa bility finding. 3. Although the ALJ’ s findings a re not supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e , it is not c le ar from

the re c ord tha

t Sa la zis e ntitle d

to be ne fits. Se e Garrison , 759 F.3d
at 1019. Som e “ e sse ntia l fa c tua l issue s” re m a in to be re solve d. Tre ic hle r v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th C i r. 2014). The re fore , we be lie ve “ a dditiona l proc e e dings [c ould] re m e dy de fe c ts in theorigina l
a dm inistra

tive proc e e ding.” Garrison , 759 F.3d a t 1019 (quoting Le w in v
. Sc hw e ik e r , 654 F.2d 631, 635 (9th C ir. 1981)). In pa rtic ula r, the ALJ should: (a

)

“ c o nduc t a

n a ppropria t e inquiry ” to de te rm ine the ba sis of Sa la z ’ s tre ating phy sic ia ns’ opinions be fore e v a luating the m , S m ole n v . C

hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th C ir. 1996); (b) e xpla in the e xte nt of he r re lia n c e on the opinions of the thre e Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion m e dic a l e xam ine rs (re fe re nc e d only by the distric t c o urt); (c ) de te rm ine the e xte nt of Sa la z ’ s at-hom e work dutie s (to e sta blish -4-whe the r that work wa s inc onsiste n t with he r sym ptom a lle gations); a

nd (d) de te rm i ne whe t

h e r the m e dic a l e vide nc e supports a finding tha

t Sa la z c o uld re m a in phy sic a lly

and m e nta lly

ava ila ble for the e xte nt of a

n e ight-hour work da

y . 4. B e c a

use the ALJ e rre d by

fa iling to give

c l e ar an d c onvinc i ng re a sons for
re je c ting a s pe c ts of Sa la z ’ s tre ating phy sic i ans’ opinions a nd Sa la z ’ s sy

m ptom te stim ony , we va c ate the re s idua l func tiona l c a pa c ity se le c te d by

the ALJ a

nd
re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts. V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.

-5-Salaz v . C

olv in , No. 14-15699 W ALLAC E , Se nior C i rc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt: I c onc ur in the m a

jority ’ s holding tha

t the c a se should not be

re turne d for judgm e nt, but dissent from its c onc lusion tha

t the c a se should bere turne d to the Adm inistra

tive La w Judge (ALJ). In m

y vie w, the ALJ provide d c l e ar and
c onvinc i ng re a sons to c re dit only som e portions of tre ating phy sic ia ns Drs. Fa irfa x and B e nja m in’ s opinions; the

ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Sa la z ’ s sy

m ptom te stim ony wa s not c re dible wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord; a nd the ALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (RFC ) a sse ssm e nt wa s suffic ie ntly spe c ific for judic ia l re vie w a

nd supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . I. The m a jority e rrone ously

c onc lude s tha

t the ALJ did not provide c le a r and
c onvinc i ng re a sons, supporte d by substa n tia l e vide nc e , for giving minim um we ight to portions of tre ating phy sic ia ns Drs. Fa irfa xand B e nja m in’ s opinions. “B y

rule , the Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm i n istra

tion fa vors the opinion of a

tre ating phy s ic ia

n ove r non-tre ating phy sic i ans.” Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th C ir. 2007) (c iting 20 C
. F.R . § 404.1527). If a tre ating phy sic ia n's opinion is “

we l l-supporte d

by
m e dic a l ly a c c e pta ble c linic a l a

nd la boratory dia gnostic te c hnique s a

nd is not inc o nsiste nt with the othe r substa ntia l e vide nc e in [the ] c a se re c ord, [it will be



# FIL ED M AY31 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSgive n] c ontrolling we ight.” Id
. (c iting 20 C
. F.R . § 404.1527(d)(2)). To re je c t a tre ating phy sic i a

n’ s unc ontra dic te d opinion, “ an ALJ m ust sta te c le ar an d
c onvinc i ng re a sons tha

t a re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e .” Bay liss v
. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005). Whe n the ALJ doe s not a fford a tre ating phy sic ia

n’ s opinion c ontrolling
we ight be c a

use “ it is not ‘ we ll-supporte d ’ or be c a use it is inc onsiste nt with other substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord, the Adm inistra tion c o n side rs spe c ifie d

fa c tors in de te rm i ning thewe ight it will be give n.” Orn , 495 F.3d a

t 631; 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c )(3)-(4). Those fa c tors inc lude the le ngth a nd fre que nc y

of tre atm e nt by the tre ating phy sic ia

n; the am ount of re le va

nt e vide nc e tha

t supports the

opinion
and the qua lity

of the e xpla

nation; thec onsiste n c y

be twe e n the opinion a

nd the
m e dic a l re c ord a s a whole ; the tre ating phy sic ia n’ s spe c ia lity ; and the tre at ing phy sic ia n’ s fam ilia

rity with there c ord a s a

whole . 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c )(2)-(6). The m a jority c onte nds tha

t the ALJ only

c ite d to two pla c e s in there c ord in disre ga rding portions of tre ating phy sic ia ns Drs. Fa irfa x a

nd B e n jam in’ s opinions. M a j . Op. a t 3. The m a

jority ignore s tha

t, im m e d iate ly prior to turning to Drs. B e nja m in a nd Fa irfa x’ s opinions, the ALJ a s se sse d the e n tire ty of Sa l a z ’ s da ily living c a p a bilitie s a nd he r tre atm e nt history

in the m e dic a l re c ord. ER II 18-20. The ALJ re fe rs to tha

t m e dic a l re c ord, whic h wa s a lre a dy an a ly z e d , in disc ussing 2the w e ight to a fford Drs. B e nja m in a nd Fa irfa x’ s opinions. ER II 21. Dr. Fa irfa xopine d

tha t Sa la z c ould not work for e i ght hours a da y , five da y s a we e k on a

re gula r and c o n siste nt ba sis due to fibrom y a lgia and c hronic na

rc otic tre atm e n t; tha

t Sa l a z c ould only

sit thre e to four hours, a

nd wa lk or sta

nd for le ss tha n two hours, in a

n e ight-hour workda

y ; c ould stoop fre que ntly ; a nd c ould lift
and c arry be t w e e n 15 a

nd 20 pounds of we ight. ER IV 605. B e c a

u se of its
c onsiste n c y

with there c ord, the ALJ c re dite d the e xe rtiona l, e nvironm e nta l, a nd postura l lim ita

tions in Dr. Fairfa x’ s opinion. ER II 21. In fa c t, the RFC re fle c ts tha t the A LJ e ve n

a dde d a dditiona l e xe rtiona l a nd postura l lim ita

tions: the ALJ limite d Sa la z to se de n ta

ry work, whic h re q

uire s lifting a

nd c a rry ing no m ore tha

n 10 pounds a t a tim e , a nd found tha

t Sa la z c ould only

oc c a siona lly

stoop. ER II 17; 20 C .F.R . § 404.1567(a

). The ALJ, howe ve r, did not c re dit tha t portion of Dr. Fairfa x’ s opinion tha t c onc lude d Sa la z c ould only sta nd a nd wa lk for le ss tha

n two hours in a

n e ight-hour workda y . ER II 21. In e xpla ining why

she disc ounte d this portion of the opinion, the A LJ sta

te d tha t Dr. Fa i rfa x ha d c onsiste ntly e nc oura ge d Sa la z to e x e rc ise
re gula rly , whic h is inc o nsiste nt with a de te rm ination tha

t Sa l a z is inc a

pa ble of sta nding for m ore tha

n two hours in a

n e ight-hour workda

y . ER II 21, se e ER

IV 437, 456, 449, 447, 577, 448. Tre at m e nt provide rs a lso ge ne ra lly found tha t Sa la z 3pre s e nte d with a norm a l ga i t, good ra nge of m otion in all of he r e xtre m itie s, a nd no
ne urologic a l de fic its. ER

II 19, se e ER

III 284, 397-99, ER IV 433-34, 438, 442, 448-50, 453, 456, 574, 577, 587, 593-94. In a ddition, Sa l a z , in he r da ily a c tivitie s, re porte d the a

bility to m ana g e a

house hold, c are for thre e y oung c h ildre n, va c uum , do dishe s, atte nd c hurc h, drive , and m ove . ER II 19, se e ER I 41, ER II 213-16, ER III 289. The ALJ, ha

ving highlighte d m e dic a l e vide n c e and te s tim ony of da ily living tha t wa s inc onsiste nt with Dr. Fa irfa x’ s c o nc lusion tha t Sa l a z wa s lim ite d to sta nding a nd wa lking for two hours a da y , provide d c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons to re je c t tha t portion of Dr. Fairfa x’ s opinion. Sim ila rly , the ALJ disc ounte d those portions of Dr. B e nja m i n’ s opinion tha

t we re inc o nsiste nt with the re c ord. Dr. B e nja

m in opine d tha

t Sa la z would
e xpe rie nc e IB S sym

ptom s thre e tim e s pe r day and 90 tim e s pe r m onth, with a n ave ra ge duration of thre e hours pe r e pisode ; tha t stre ss a nd phy sic a l a c tivity

would inc re a se he r sym

ptom s of fibrom

y a lgia and IB S; a

nd tha t she ha d a

“ m ode rate ly
se ve re ” de g re e of re stric tion. E R IV 495-96, 603-04. The

ALJ c re dite d the
e nvironm e nta l lim ita

t ions e xp re sse d by

Dr. B e nja

m in. ER II 21. The ALJ did not
a fford c ontrolling we ight to the re m a inde r of Dr. B e nja

m in’ s opinion. The ALJ re a sone d tha

t the e xtre m e lim ita

t ions posite d by

Dr. B e n jam in we re c ontra dic te d by “ the e v ide nc e whic h e sta blishe s tha

t c la i m ant is le ss re stric te d in 4he r a

bilitie s,” whic h inc lude s Sa la z ’ s re p ort of he r da ily a c tivitie s , suc h a s m ana ging a

house hold, driving, a

nd running he r own busine ss. ER II 19, 21; se e ER I 41, ER

II 213-16, ER

III 289. The ALJ a lso e xpla ine d tha t Sa la z ’ s tre atm e n t re c o rds did not c onta in pe rsiste nt c om pla i nts or disc ussion of sy m ptom s of IB S to the e xte nt pre se nte d in Dr. B e nja m in’ s opinion. ER

II 21. During e ight visits to Dr. B e nja m in, Sa la z did not report tha t she wa s e xpe rie nc ing signific an t IB S sym ptom s, le t a lone tha

t he r IB S, c ouple d with he r fibrom y a lgia sy m ptom s, inc a pa c ita te d he r for thre e hours. ER II 19-20, ER

IV 466, 469-73, 495, 599, 600. The ALJ a lso found no ba sis for the portion of Dr. B e nja m in’ s opinion tha

t sta te d stre ss m a de Sa la z ’ s sy

m ptom s worse . ER

II 21. In a ddition, Sa la z ’ s c olonosc opy in Oc tobe r 2008 re v e a le d no signific ant a bnorm a lity

and no a c tive c olitis. ER

II 20, ER III 381. The ALJ, ha

ving supporte d he r de c ision to disc ount a portion of Dr. B e nja m in’ s opinion with e

vide n c e from

the m e d ic a l re c ord a

nd Sa la z ’ s te stim ony of da ily living, provide d c le ar a

nd c onvinc ing re a sons for not a ffording a portion of Dr. B e nja m in’ s opinion c ontrolling we ight. Se e Batson v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin ., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th C ir. 2004) (c onc luding tha t an ALJ m ay

re je c t a tre ating phy sic i a

n’ s opinion tha

t is unsupporte d by

the re c ord a s a

whole or by obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e ). II. 5C ontra ry to the m a jority ’ s c onc lusion, the

ALJ provide d substa

ntia l e vide nc e from the re c o rd in c onc luding tha t Sa la z ’ s sy

m ptom te stim ony

wa s not c re d ible
. An ALJ e nga ge s in a two-ste p a na ly sis to de te rm ine whe t he r a c la i m ant’ s te stim ony re ga rding subje c tive pa in or sy m ptom s is c re d ible
. Linge nfe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th C ir. 2007). First, the ALJ de te rm ine s whe the r the c la i m ant “ ha s pre s e nte d obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e of an unde rly ing im pa irm e nt ‘ whic h c ould re a sona bly be e xpe c te d to produc e the pa in or othe r sym ptom s a lle ge d.’ ” Id . at 1036, quoting Bunne l l v . Sullivan , 947 F.2d 341, 344 (9th C ir. 1991) (e n ba

nc ). The n, if the c la i m ant m e e ts the first te st a n d the re is no
e vide nc e of m a linge ring, “ the ALJ c a n re je c t the c la im an t’ s te stim o ny a b out the
se ve rity of the sy m ptom s by offe ring spe c ific , c le ar a

nd c onvinc ing re a sons for doing so.” Smole n v . C

hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th C ir. 1996). In we i ghing the
c la im ant’ s c re dibility , the ALJ m ay c onside r a t le a st the following fa c tors: c la im ant’ s re puta

tion for truthfulne ss; inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n the c l a im ant’ s te stim ony and he r c onduc t; c l a im ant’ s da ily a c tivitie s, inc luding he r work re c ord;
and te stim ony

from phy sic ia ns a nd third pa

rtie s c onc e rning the nature and se ve rity of the sy m ptom s of whic h the c la im ant c om pla ins. Thomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th C ir. 2002) (c i tation omitte d). Sa la z te stifie d tha

t she wa s una

ble to work dueto fibrom y a lgia pa in, fa tigue , 6IB S sym

p tom s, a nd num bne ss a nd tingling in he

r hands. The ALJ disc ounte d the
a lle ge d se ve rity of Sa la z ’ s sy m ptom te stim ony

by highlighting c ontra dic t ory e vide nc e from Sa l a z ’ s m e dic a l history and he r da i ly

living a c tivitie s. In e xpla i ning how Sa la z ’ s te stim ony c o ntra dic te d the m e d ic a l e v ide nc e , the ALJ e m pha siz e d the following with re spe c t to Sa la z ’ s re ports of pa in a nd IB S sym ptom s: in July

2006, Sa la z ha d only

slight swe lling in her le ft ha nd with no pitting, a nd a good ra nge of m otion in the

joints of her uppe r and lowe r e xtre m itie s, ER II 19, se e ER

IV 433; in Feb ruary

2007, Sa la z wa lke d with a norm a l ga it, de m onstra

te d full ra nge of m otion in her ne c k without pain, a nd c o uld m a

k e a full fist a nd ope n up with no loss of m otion, ER II 20, s e e ER III 284; in April 2008, Sa la z ha d lost sixty

five pounds, wa s m

uc h m ore c a

p a ble of c aring for he rse lf a nd he r c hildre n, unde rwe nt a c olonosc opy

with norm a l re sults, a

nd he r ga strointe stina l pathology re port note d tha

t the re wa s no signific ant a b norm a lity , a

nd no a c tive , c hronic , or m ic rosc o pic c olitis, ER II 20; in Ja

nua ry 2010, Sa l a z pre se nte d with no
a c tive sy novitis a nd no obje c tive m

usc le we akne ss, ER

II 20, se e ER

IV 448; in Ja nua ry 2011, upon e x am ination, no obje c tive e vide nc e of m u sc le we akne ss or gross ne urologic a l de fic its we re found, ER II 20, se e ER

IV 586-87; a

nd in April 2011, Sa la z ha d

X-ray s ta ke n of he r bila

te ra l hips, shoulde

rs, a nd kne e s whic h
we re a ll unre m arka

ble , ER II 20, se e ER

IV 593. 7The ALJ a lso note d how Sa la z ’ s te stim ony wa s inc onsiste nt with the re sults from he r tre atm e nt. ER

II 19. Sa la z ’ s tre atm e nt wa s c onse rvat ive in na ture and
c onsiste d m a inly of pa in m ana ge m e nt a

n d follow-up c are . ER

II 19, se e ER IV 432-42, 453, 456, 447-50, 577, 587. She a l so re gula

rly re porte d tha

t she im prove d with m e dic ation a

nd a djustm e nts to he r tre atm e nt. ER II 19, se e ER

IV 436, 438, 448, 456. The re wa s no e vide nc e tha t she re c e ive d phy sic a l the ra p y or othe r a lte rnative re ha

b ilita t ive tre at m e nt for he r sym

ptom s . ER

II 19. Sa la z re porte d tha

t
a fte r she unde rwe nt surge ry for c arpa l tunne l sy

n drom e and e ar issue s tha t the surge rie s re lie v e d the sy

m ptom s. ER

II 19-20, se e ER

III 287. Two we e ks a fte r he r c arpa l tunne l surge ry in April 2007, she re porte d tha

t she wa s “ d o ing ve ry we ll”
and, in June2007, Dr. Dinowitz note d tha t Sa la z wa s “ v e ry

he a lthy .” ER

II 20, se e ER III 287-88. Afte r Sa la z ha d surge ry on he r e ar for c hole ste atom a , he r he aring
re turne d to ba se l ine . ER

II 20. W ith re spe c t to he r fibrom y a lgia , both Sa la z and he r phy sic ia ns sta te d it wa s be ing suc c e ssfully

c om bate d with tre atm e nt: in De c e m be r 2006, Sa la z re porte d that she wa s “ doing fa i rly

we l l” with re ga

rd to he r fibrom

y a lgia and Dr. Fa irfa x note d tha t she wa s sta

ble on he r m e dic ation, ER II 19, s e e ER IV 436; in M ay 2007, Dr. Fa irfa x a ga in note d tha t Sa l a z 's fibrom

y a lgia wa s sta ble , ER II 20, se e IV 438; in April 2008, Dr. Fa i rfa x re porte d tha

t Sa la z wa s doing we ll on he r pa in 8m e dic at ions, ER II 20, se e ER

IV 456; a

nd, in Ja nua ry 2010, Sa la z a dm itte d tha t the c urre nt tre atm e nt pla

n for he r fibrom

y a lgia ha d be e n be ne fic ia l, ER

II 20, se e ER IV 448. The ALJ a lso highlighte d the inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n Sa la z ’ s subje c tive sym ptom te stim ony

and he r re ports of da ily

living. ER

II 19, se eER

I 41, ER II 213-16, ER

III 289, ER IV 436 . The m a jority c onc lude s, howe ve r, tha t the ALJ fa ile d to e sta

blish thee x te nt of Sa la z ’ s re sponsibilitie s at hom e in finding tha

t the
e vide nc e of Sa la z ’ s da ily

a c tivitie s unde rc ut the c re dibility of he r te stim ony . While the A LJ m ay

hav e be e n a

ble to inte rpre t the e vide nc e diffe re ntly , this c ourt re vie ws the A LJ’ s de c ision to de te rm ine only whe the r or not it is supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e in the re c ord, not to se c ond gue ss the ALJ’ s inte rpre t ation. Batson v
. C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin ., 359 F.3d 1190, 1198 (9th C i r. 2004) (“ Whe n the
e vide nc e be fore the ALJ is subje c t to m ore tha n one ra tiona l inte rpre tation, [re vie w ing c ourts] m

ust de fe r to the ALJ’ s c onc lusion” ). The ALJ's disc ussion of Sa la z ’ s da ily

a c tivitie s highlights the

inc onsiste nc y

be twe e n the e vide nc e and he r sym ptom te stim ony , a

nd provide s furthe r e v ide nc e for the ALJ's de c ision to disc re dit thesy

m ptom te stim ony . Se e id . at 1196 (upholding ALJ's de c ision to
re je c t sy m ptom te stim ony be c a

use it wa s inc onsiste nt with c la im a n t's re porte d da ily a c tivitie s of c aring for pe ts, wa lking, going out for c offe e , a nd soc ia liz ing); 9Rollins v . Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th C ir. 2001) (c onc luding tha t c la im an t's pa in te stim o ny

wa s unde rm ine d

by he r da ily a c tivitie s of c aring for two c hildre n, c ooking, houseke e ping, la undry , shopping, a

nd a b ility to a tte nd the ra

py ). Ultim ate ly , the c ontra dic tions be twe e n the obje c t ive m e d ic a l e vide nc e and Sa la z ’ s sy m ptom t e stim ony

support theALJ’ s c onc lusion, ba se d on substa ntia l
e vide nc e from the re c ord, tha t Sa la z ’ s subje c tive sy

m ptom te s tim o ny wa s not c re d ible
. Se e C

armic k lev . C o mm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin ., 533 F.3d 1115, 1161 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ C ontra dic t ion with the m e d i c a l re c ord is a

suffic ie nt ba sis for re

je c ting the c la i m ant’ s subje c tive te stim ony ” ). III. La stly , the ALJ’ s R

FC a sse s sm e nt wa s not only suffic ie ntly spe c ific for judic ia l re vie w, but a l so supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord. Sa la z c onte nds tha

t the R FC de te rm ination is not supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e in the re c ord be c a

use the ALJ fa ile d to se t forth a func tion-by -func tion a sse s sm e nt of Sa la z ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity . Sa la z argue s furthe r that the R FC de te rm i nation is de fic ie n t be c a use the ALJ ne e de d to m a k e spe c ific findings a s to the l e ngth of tim e Sa la zc a n sit, sta nd, wa lk, the am ount of we ight shec a n lift a nd
c arry , he r ne e d for bathroom bre aks, re s troom a c c e ss, a nd ha nd lim ita tions. The ALJ found tha

t Sa la z : 1 0ha d the re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity to pe rform le ss tha n the full ra

nge of se de nta

ry work a s de fine d in 20 C FR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) with the following lim

ita tions; the c la im ant is lim

i te d to oc c a siona l c lim bing of ra m p s and sta irs; she c an ne ve r c lim b la dde rs, rope s or sc a ffolds; shec an oc c a siona l ly ba la nc e , stoop, kne e l, c rouc h, a nd c rawl; she is limite d to fre que nt bila te ra l ha ndling a n d finge ring; she ne e ds to a void c onc e ntrate d e xposure to e xtre m e te m pe ra ture s, noise and ha z ards suc h a s m a c hine ry and unprote c te d he ights; a

nd she is lim ite d to a

work e nvironm e nt with a m o de ra te noise le ve l. The ALJ’ s re fe re nc e to the de finitions of se de nta ry work in 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1567(a) and 419.967(a) provide the ty p e of spe c ific lim ita

tions whic h Sa la z se e k s. B y de finition, se de n ta

ry work involve s “ lifting no more tha n 10 pounds a

t a tim e ” and “pe riods of sta

nding or wa lking should ge ne ra lly tota l a pproxim ate ly

6 hours of a n 8-hour workda

y .” Soc ia l Se c urity

R e gula t ion 83-10p; 20 C .F.R . § 404.1567(a). The ALJ inc lude d the se we ight limita tions in her hy

pothe tic a l to the
voc ationa l e xpe rt. The ALJ a l so a ddre sse d Sa la z ’ s lim ita tions with re spe c t to he r ha nds, finding tha

t Sa la z “ is limite d to fre que nt bila te ra l ha ndling a nd finge ring.” The ALJ, m ore ove r, wa s not re quire d to form ulate a func tion-by -func tion
ana ly sis be c a

use pe rform ing suc h a

n a na ly sis “ for m e dic a l c onditions or im pa irm e nts tha

t the ALJ found ne ithe r c re dible nor supporte d by the re c ord is
unne c e ssa

ry .” Bay liss, 427 F.3d a

t 1217. Aga i n, the ALJ’ s de c ision not to cre dit Sa la z ’ s sy m ptom t e stim ony

an d portions of the

tre ating phy sic ia

ns’ opinions wa s supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord. The ALJ ha d a lre a dy disc ounte d 1 1Sa la z ’ s te stim ony re ga rding he r IB S an d Dr. B e nja m in’ s opinion a s to these ve rity of he r IB S sym

ptom s due to Sa la z ’ s re ports of he r da ily a c tivitie s a

nd he r tre atm e nt history for IB S. ER

II 19, se e ER

I 41, ER II 213-16, ER

III 289, ER

IV 466, 469-73, 599, 600. As a

re sult, Sa la z 's c onte ntion tha t the R FC is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e be c a

use the ALJ fa ile d to pe rform a func tion-by -func tion
a sse ssm e nt a

nd wa s not suffic ie ntly

spe c ific for judic ia l re vie w la c ks m e rit. IV. In c onc lusion, I disse

nt from the m a jority opinion be c a

use the ALJ provide d
c le ar an d c onvinc ing re a s ons for re je c ting those

portions of Drs. Fairfa x a nd B e nja m in’ s opinions tha

t we re inc onsiste nt with the m e dic a l re c o rd and Sa la z ’ s re ports of da ily

living; substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord supports the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Sa la z ’ s sy

m ptom te stim ony

wa s not c re dible ; a

nd the ALJ’ s R

FC de te rm i nation wa s suffic ie ntly spe c ific for judic i a l re vie wand supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord.

1 2