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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-16700 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01214-M HB
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 M ic h e lle H. B urns, M a g istra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and IKUTA, ** C irc uit Judge s, a n d ELLIS, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUN 04 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** This c a se wa s subm itte d to a pa ne l tha t inc lude d Judge Koz inski, who re c e ntly re t ire d. Following Judge Koz inski’ s re t ire m e nt, JudgeIkuta wa s dra wn by lot to repla c e him . Ninth C irc uit Ge ne ra l Orde r 3.2.h. Judge Ikuta ha s re a d the brie fs, re vie we d the re c ord, a nd liste ne d to ora l a

rgum e nt.

* * * The Honora

ble Sara Le e Ellis, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.Pla intiff-Appe lla nt W e ldon Kna

pe (“ Kna pe ” ) a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of his 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 unde r Title s II
and XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. Our a

ppe lla te jurisdic t ion re sts on 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we RE V E R SE . It is undispute d tha

t Kna pe suffe re d from

m anic de pre ssion a

nd bipola r disorde r and wa s princ ipa lly tre ate d by

his prim ary

c a re phy sic ia

n who pre sc ribe d
m ultiplem e dic ations for the se disorde rs. It is a lso undispute d tha t the tre atm e nt c a use d phy sic a l side e ffe c ts inc luding dy stonia and ta rdive dy s kine sia , re sulting in
unc ontrolla

ble m ove m e nts from

tim e to tim e and pa

rtia l ina bility to turn his he a d or look downwa

rd at a c om pute r. Kna

pe le ft his prior position as a psy c hiatric a ide be c a use of the se phy s ic a l a

nd m e nta l disa

bilitie s. Kna pe ’ s m e dic a l re c ords re fle c t tha t he wa s hospita liz e d for his m e nta l
c ondition be twe e n te n a

nd twe lve tim e s a

nd atte m pte d suic ide thre e or four tim e s , the l a st be ing within a

y e ar of the he aring in this proc e e ding. In De c e m be r 2012, he atte m pte d suic i de by

c utting his wrists, ha

nging, a nd ta king a n ove rdose of his
m e dic at ion. He subse que ntly be ga n a supe rvise d living situa

tion tha t, c ouple d with
m e dic at ions, a

ppe a re d to providesom e im

p rove m e nt in his me nta l c o n dition.

2The ALJ c onc lude d Kna pe wa s not disa

ble d, a n d the distric t c ourt a ffirm e d the C om m issione r’ s de nia l of be ne fits. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo, giving de fe re nc e to fa c t ua l de te rm inations a

nd obse rvations. S

e e Hill v
. Astrue , 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th C ir. 2012). The C om m i ssione r’ s de c ision will be
re ve rse d only

if it is ba se d on le ga l e rror or is not supporte d by substa n tia l
e vide nc e . Se e Tre ic hle r v . C omm’r of Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th C ir. 2014). The ALJ did not fully

c re dit the c la im ant’ s de sc ription of his unde rly ing
c ondition, but ga

ve no spe c i fic re a sons for doing so, a s the ALJ is re quire d to do. Se e Brow n-Hunte r v . C

olv in , 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th C ir. 2015) (the ALJ’ s fa ilure

“ to ide ntify

the te stim ony

she found not c re dible ” and “ link tha t te stim ony

to the pa rtic u la r parts of the re c ord supporting her non-c re dibility de te rm ination” is le ga l
e rror); Tre ic hle r , 775 F.3d 1090, 1102–03 (9th C ir. 2014) (the ALJ’ s fa ilure to ide n tify whic h pa rts of thec la im ant’ s te stim ony are not c re d ible and the e vide nc e supporting tha

t c onc lusion is le ga l e rror). The ALJ fa ile d to ide ntify the pa rts of Kna pe ’ s m e nta l he a lth sy

m ptom te stim o ny

he found not c re d ible and fa ile d to provide any

links to the

re c ord. Our c om

pre he nsive re vie w of the re c ord re fle c ts that the c la im an t’ s te stim ony at the he a ring wa s fully

born out by

the m e dic a l
re c o rds of his tre at i ng phy s ic ia n and othe r c a

re provide rs. 3Kna

pe a lso c onte nds tha

t the ALJ e rre d in re

je c ting theopinion of his tre ating phy sic i a

n, Dr. Ha c ke ny os, in fa

v or of the opinion of the

e x am ining psy c hologist, Dr. M c Le an. “ The opinions of tre ating doc tors should be give n m ore we ight tha

n the opinions of doc tors who do not tre at the c la im an t.” R e ddic k v . C hate r , 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th C ir. 1998) (c i tation omitte d). An ALJ is e ntitle d to
re je c t a tre ating doc tor’ s c ontra dic te d opinion only if it is ba s e d on “ spe c i fic and le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord.” Id. (c ita tion
and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). The ALJ’ s de c i sion to disc ount the te stim ony of Dr. Ha c k e ny os wa s not ba se d on spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . The ALJ disc re dite d the phy sic ia n’ s note s a

ppa re n tly on the the ory

tha t the y de sc ribe d som e p rior history and the re fore did not re fle c t a n a c c urate a sse ssm e nt of Kna pe ’ s c urre n t he a lth sta

tus. Although the

c a ption for Dr. Ha c ke ny os’ s note s wa s

“ History of Pre se nt Illne ss,” the note s the m se l ve s we re c le a rly an d c onsiste ntly upda te d to re fle c t Kna

pe ’ s c ondition a s of the tim e the y we re ta ke n in 2011 a

nd 2012. Dr. Ha c ke ny os’ s de sc riptions of the c la i m ant’ s unde rly ing c ondition a nd sym ptom s, a s of la

t e 2011 through e a

rly 2012, a re fully c orroborate d

by the
c la im ant's te stim ony

and othe r m e dic a l e v ide nc e showing tha t Kna pe ’ s bipola

r disorde r wa s unc ontrolle d, tha t he e xpe rie nc e d unc o ntrolla ble thoughts, a

nd tha t he
4a lso suffe re d from de pre sse d fe e lings. TheALJ e rre d in disc re diting the note s of the t re ating phy sic ia

n. Dr. M c Le an, who sa

w Kna pe only onc e , note d

Kna pe ’ s m e n ta l c ondition ha d a ppa re ntly im p rove d, but tha

t opinion c ould not, on this re c ord, unde rm ine Dr. Ha c ke ny os’ s thorough e va luations a n d dia gnose s re c orde d ove r the life of the patie nt-doc tor re lationship. Se e Ry an v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 528 F.3d 1194, 1200–01 (9th C ir. 2008) (re fe re nc e s in note s tha t c la im ant’ s a

nxie ty and de pre ssion
we re “ i m proving” are not “ suffic ie nt to unde rm ine the re p e at e d dia gnosis of those
c onditions” ); Holohan v
. Massanari , 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ That a pe rson who suffe rs from

se ve re pa nic atta c ks, a

nxie ty , a nd de pre ssion m a

k e s som e im prove m e nt doe s not m e an tha t the pe rson’ s im

pa irm e nts no longer se riously
a ffe c t he r a

bility to func tion in a

workpla c e .” ). Dr. Ha c k e ny o s re pe ate dly
m onitore d the phy sic a l side e ffe c ts ste m m ing from

Kna pe ’ s antipsy c hotic
m e dic at ions. Dr. M c Le an’ s re port doe s not re fle c t tha t she re vie we d Kna

pe ’ s e xte nsive m e dic a l history in re a c hing he r opinion. Nor doe s it a c c ount for va rious fa c t s showing tha

t Kna pe ’ s a bility to liveinde pe nde ntly

is limite d. The ALJ e rre d by disc ounting the

opinion of the

tre ating phy sic ia

n, who de ve lope d a

“ de ta ile d, longitudina

l pic ture ” of Kna

pe ’ s c o m plic ate d m e dic a l history , a nd giving gre ate r

5we ight to the opinion of a

n e xam ining psy c hologist, who de sc ribe d the c la im ant’ s m e nta l c ondition a s it a

ppe are d to he r that da

y . 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c )(2). W e c onc lude tha

t the ALJ e rre d in re

je c ting both Kna

pe ’ s te stim ony

and the opinions of his tre ating phy sic ia n tha t supporte d it. Thevoc ationa l e xpe rt te stifie d that Kna p e ’ s sy m p t om s would e lim inate a ll work. The re is no ne e d for furthe r proc e e dings. There c ord is fully de ve lope d. Kna

pe ha s de m onstra

te d tha t he is
e ntitle d to be n e fits. S

e e P opa v . Be rry hill , 872 F.3d 901, 907–08 (9th C i r. 2017). The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is re ve rse d and the m atte r re m ande d with instruc tions to re m and to theALJ for the c a lc ulat ion a nd a ward of be ne fits. RE V E RSE D; RE M A N DE D for c alc ulation and aw a r d of be ne fits.

6K

napev . Be rry hill , 16-16700 IKUTA, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: In e va luat ing Soc ia l Se c urity c a se s “ we m ay

not re we igh the e v ide nc e , substitute [our] own judgm e nt for the Se c re ta ry ’ s, or give ve nt to fe e lings of
c om pa ssion.” W

inans v . Bow e n , 853 F.2d 643, 644–45 (9th C ir. 1987) (a l te ra tion in origina l) (c ita

tion a nd quota t ion m arks om itte d ). He re the m a jority doe s a ll thre e : it re je c ts the ALJ’ s de c ision ba se d on its own a

na ly s is of the e vide nc e , sta nds in for theALJ, a

nd the n ignore s our pre c e de nt so it c an re m and for be ne fits. On a ppe a l, Kna

pe c la im s tha

t the ALJ e rre d in finding tha t Kna pe did not suffe r from

se ve re m e nta l im

pa irm e nts, a

n d a rgue s tha t the ALJ should not ha

ve c re d ite d the opinion of e xam ining psy c hologist Dr. M c Le an ove r the opinion of tre ating phy sic i a

n Dr. Ha c ke ny os. B ut the re gula t ions a nd our pre c e de nt m ake
c le ar that a

n ALJ c an “ give m ore we ight to the m e dic a l opinion of a

spe c ia list
a bout m e dic a l issue s re late d to his or he r are a of spe c ia lty tha n to the m e dic a l opinion of a

sourc e who is not a

spe c ia list.” 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c )(5); se e Holohan v . Massanari , 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 n.2 (9th C ir. 2001) (noting tha t a tre ating phy sic i a

n’ s opinion “

m ay be e ntitle d to little

if a ny we ight” whe n offe ring

“ an opinion on a

m atte r not re late d to he r or his a re a of spe c i a liz ation” ). M ore o ve r, the ALJ ga

ve spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons for disc ounting Dr. Ha c ke ny os’ s note s re ga

rding Kna pe ’ s m e nta l sta

t e : the y we re pa rt of the “ History ” 

# FIL ED JUN 04 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSse c t ion of Dr. Ha c ke ny os’ s re ports a nd we re not supporte d by othe r obje c tive findings in the re port. The m a jority re je c ts the ALJ’ s c onc lusion by re w e ighing the e vide nc e . Inste a d of a c c e pting theALJ’ s re a sona ble inte rpre tation of Dr. Ha c ke ny os’ s re port, the m a jority substitute s its own c onc lusion tha t the note s a c tua lly

c onstitute

c urre nt a sse ssm e nts. B ut “ [w] e m ust uphold the

ALJ’ s de c ision whe re the e vide n c e is
susc e ptible to m ore tha

n one ra tiona l inte rpre tation.” Linge nfe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1042 (9th C ir. 2007) (a lte ra tion in origina l ) (quoting Burc h v . Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 680–81 (9th C i r. 2005)). Nor doe s the m a j ority fa irly re we i gh the
e vide nc e . It sa

y s tha t Dr. Ha c ke ny os’ s m e nta l im pa irm e nt opinion is “ fully
c orroborate d” by

m e dic a l e vide nc e
—

but c ite s no suc h m e d ic a l e vide nc e . M aj. O p. at 5 . In fa c t , Dr. Ha c k e ny os’ s note s we re c ontra d ic te d by a m e d ic a l re port sta ting tha t Kna p e ha d “ non-psy c hotic ” thought c onte nt a n d a n “ unre m arka

ble ” thought proc e s s. Eve n worse , the m a

jority substitute s its own views for those of the ALJ a nd usurps theALJ’ s role in the proc e ss. Although Kna p e ’ s c l a im

on a ppe a l wa s tha

t the A LJ e rre d in re

je c ting Dr. Ha c ke ny os’ s vie ws of his m e ntal im pa irm e nts in favor of Dr. M c Le an ’ s opinions, the m a jority de c ide s sua

sponte tha

t Dr. M c Le an’ s opinion c annot be c re dite d be c a use of he r fa ilure to c onside r Kna pe ’ s “ phy sic al 2side e ffe c ts ste m m ing from

Kna pe ’ s a n ti-psy c hotic m e dic ations.” M aj. op. at 6 (e m pha sis a dde d ). B e c a

use Kna pe ne ve r ra ise d this issue , a nd the ALJ ne ve r c onside re d it, this c onc lusion a ppe ars e ntire ly

e xtra ne o us to prope r judic i a l re vie w. M ore o ve r, Dr. M c Le an did not purport to a sse ss Kna pe ’ s phy s ic a l sy

m ptom s, a nd the A LJ did not re ly

on he r opinion in a sse ssing Kna pe ’ s phy sic a l lim ita

t ions. Fina lly , the m a

jority “ give [s] ve nt to fe e lings of c o m pa ssion,” W

i nans , 853 F.2d at 645 (c ita

tion omitte d), by

ignoring our pre c e de nt in re m anding for be ne fits,
se e , e .g. , Hill v
. Astrue , 698 F.3d 1153, 1162 (9th C ir. 2012). W e m ay re m and for be ne fits “ only

in ra re c i rc um s ta

nc e s, whe re no use ful purpose would be se rve d by furthe r a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings a

nd the re c o rd ha s be e n thoroughly de ve lope d.” Tre ic hle r v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th C ir. 2014) (c ita tions a nd quota tion m arks om itte d). B e c a use “ a re vie wing c ourt is not
re quire d to c re dit c l a im ants’ a lle gations re ga rding the e xte nt of the ir im p a i rm e nts a s true m e re ly

be c a use the ALJ m a de a

le ga l e rror in disc re diting the ir te stim ony ,” id. at 1106, theALJ m

ust re solve whe the r Kna

pe ’ s te stim ony

is c re dible in light of the m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord. The m a jority ignore s this pre c e d e n t, de te rm i ne s on its own tha t Kna pe ’ s te stim ony

is c re dible , a

nd c onc lude s tha

t the
re c o rd une quivoc a lly

supports a

disa bility de te rm inat ion. The m a jority ’ s re a soning he re is not c onsiste nt with the la w or pre c e de nt; 3ra the r, it a

m ounts to a

n usurpa t ion of the ALJ’ s role . The re fore , I disse n t .

4