NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC GONZALES MIRANDA ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ANDREW M. SAUL , Commissioner of Social Security , Defendant

- Appellee

. No. 19

- 15474
D

. C

. No. 2:17

- cv - 01653

- DMC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Dennis M. Cota, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8 , 2020 ** San Francisco, California Before: BOGGS, *** M. SMITH, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Eric Miranda , who alleges disability from musculoskeletal pain resulting from a slip

- and

- fall accident , appeals the C ommissioner’s finding that he is able to

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

- 3.

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

*** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 30 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

perform past relevant work and his subsequent denial of disability and supplemental security income benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not address t he work limitations opined by an orthopedic surgeon who had examined Mr. Miranda , we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the C ommissioner. B ut b ecause significant questions
remain as to Mr. Miranda’s residual functional capacity, we affirm the denial of summary judgment for Mr. Miranda and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. We review de novo a district court order affirming a denial of Social Security
benefits. Burrell v. Colvin , 775 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2014). We uphold the
C ommissioner’s decision to deny benefits only if that decision is both supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin

. , 169 F.3 d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999).
1. Generally, an ALJ must address each medical opinion in the record , especially
those of treating or examining physicians . A treating physician ’s opinion typically
receive s more weight than the opinion of an examining but nontreating physician , which in turn receive s more weight than a nonexamining physician ’s opinion. Garrison v. Colvin , 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014)

. If a treating or examining physician ’s opinion is c ontradicted by another physician , the ALJ may reject the former only by “ providing ‘ specific and legitimate reasons ’ supported by substantial3

evidence in the record

. ” Lester v. Chater , 81 F.3d 821, 830

– 31 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Murray v. Heckler , 722 F.2 d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983))

. The ALJ must “explicitly reject [each] medical opinion or set forth specific, legitimate reasons for crediting one medical opinion over another

. ” Garrison , 759 F.3d at 1012. T he ALJ also errs by rejecting a specialist physician ’s opinion “without substantiated grounds for doing so

. ” Smolen v. Chater , 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir. 1996)

. On the other hand, the ALJ need not address evidence that is “neither significant nor probative.” Vincent
ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
2. John Warbritton wa s an orthopedic specialist who examined Mr. Miranda at
the behest of California’s State Compensation Insurance Fund. During the examination, he noted that Mr. Miranda demonstrated poor effort on two tests

— of his grip strength and his ankles’ range of motion

— and further remark ed that Mr. Miranda had multiple somatic complaints during the process. Nevertheless, D r. Warbritton diagnosed Mr. Miranda with two spinal strains (cervical and lumbar), strains of both shoulders, left

- knee patellofemoral syndrome (also called “runner’s knee”) with atrophy of the left quadriceps, and myofascial pain syndrome. He restricted Mr. Miranda from pulling or pushing over 10 pounds until he r ecovered from these injuries

. 3. Mr. Miranda contends that t he ALJ erred by failing to state how much weight he gave, if any, to D r. Warbritton’s opinion. The C ommissioner responds that Dr. Warbritton’s opinion was neither significant nor probative. We disag ree. At the time4

of the examination, Dr. Warbritton was a board

- certified orthopedic surgeon. He personally examined Mr. Miranda . It is true that Mr. Miranda demonstrated poor effort on two tests, and perhaps those tests lack probative value. But the examination
was far more thorough than just administering those two tests. And Dr. Warbritton opined that , despite those instances of poor effort, Mr. Miranda had objective symptoms affecting several parts of his body

. He specifically restricted M r. Miranda from pushing or pulling over 10 pounds

. All of this is significant, probative evidence of disability. T he ALJ therefore
erred both by fail ing to assign it weight , Garrison , 759 F.3d at 1012, and by effectively rejecting a specialist’s opinion “ w ithout substantiated grounds for doing so ,”
Smolen , 80 F.3d at 1288.
4. Because there remains a “ need to resolve conflicts and ambiguities” about Mr. Miranda’s residual functional capacity, we do not remand for an award of benefits

. Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc . Sec. Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014). W e instead remand for the district court to order further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part , REVERSED in part , and REMANDED
.