T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C YN T HI A D . B R OWN, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C o m m i ssi o n er o f S o ci al S ecu ri ty, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 17076 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 -C V -0 0 9 0 1 -F JM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona F r e de r i c k J . M a rt one , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r6, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H U G , D . W . N E L S O N , M C K E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C y n th iaB r o w n ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd e n y in g h e rr e q u e s t to 

# FI LED DE C 10 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

va c a t e the S oc i a l S e c ur i tyA dm i ni s tr a t i on’ s de c i s i on tha ts he i s note l i gi bl e f or d i s ab i l i tyb e n e f

i t s . W e a f

f i rm. W e r e v ie w d is tr ic t c o u rt d e c is io n s up h o ld in g th e d e n ia l o f b e n e f its d e n o v o . Fla ten v. Sec’y o

f H ea l th a n d H u m a n Servs. , 44 F . 3d 1453, 1457 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( c i t i ng M a tth e w s v . Sh a la la , 10 F . 3d 67 8, 67 9 (9th C i r. 19 93 )) . H ow ever , w e m ay o v e rtu rn a n A d m in is tr a tiv e L a w J u d g e ’s ( “A L J ” ) d e n ia l o f b e n e f its “‘o n lyif

it is no tsupp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence or i s bas ed on l egal error. ’ ” Morga n v. C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 169 F . 3d 595, 599 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng M ag al lan es v. B ow en , 88 1 F . 2d 74 7, 75 0 (9th C i r. 19 89 ). S ub st ant i al evi dence m e a n s “s u c h r e le v a n t e v id e n c e a s ar e a s o n ab le m in dm ig h t a c c e p t a s a d e q u a te to supp orta c on cl usi on . ” I d. I ti s “ m or e tha n am e r e s c i nt i l l abutl e s s tha n a prepon derance. ” B a

yl iss v. B a rn h a rt , 427 F . 3d 1211, 1214 n. 1 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T h u s , w e m u s t u p h o ldth e A L Je v e n w h e n “e v id e n c e e x is ts to su p p o rt m o re th an o n e r atio n al in terp re tati o n ,” as lo n g as th e A L J’s i nt erpret at i on i s “ supp ort ed by i nfer ence s r ea sonabl y draw n from the re cord. ” B at s on v . C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 35 9 F . 3d 11 90 , 11 93 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). T he A L Jdi d note rra ts t e p thr e e i n the di s abi l i tyana l y s i s w he n he de t e rm i ne d tha tM s . B r ow n doe s notha ve apr e s um pt i ve l ydi s abl i ng i m pa i rm e nt unde rL i s t i ng 12. 04 of

20 C . F . R . P t . 404, S ubpt . P , A pp. 1. I n or de rt o beS ect i o n A d escri b es rel ev an tsym p t o m s ( e . g. , appet i t e di sturbance, sl ee p 1 di s turba nc e , de c r e a s e d e ne r gy , e t c . ) ; S e c t i on B de s c r i be s the r e qui r e d e f f e c t s of th o se sym p t o m s ( e . g. , “ [m ] arked res tri ct i on of ac t i vi t i es of dai l y l i vi ng , ” “ [m ] arked di f f i c ul t i e s i n m a i nt a i ni ng s oc i a l f unc t i oni ng, ” e t c . ) ; a nd S e c t i on C de s c r i be s the c r i t e r i af orde t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe c l a i m a ntha s aqua l i f y i ng “ c hr oni c a f

f e c t i ve di s or de r . ” 20 C . F . R . P t . 404, S ubpt . P , A pp. 1. 3 pres um pt i vel y di sabl ed un der the L i st i ng s, a c l ai m ant“ m ustpres entm edi ca l f i ndi ngs e qua l i n s e ve r i tyt o a ll the cr i t er i a f

or the on e m ostsi m i l arl i st ed i m pai rm ent . ” Su l l i van v. Zebley , 4 9 3 U .S . 5 2 1 , 5 3 1 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) ( c i t i ng 20 C . F . R . § 416. 926( a ) ( 1989) ) . L i s t i ng 12. 04, w hi c h pe rt a i ns t o a f f e c t i ve di s or de r s , pr ovi de s tha t“ [ t ] he r e qui r e d l e ve l of s e ve r i ty. . . i s m e tw he n the r e q u ir e m e n ts in b o th [ s u b s e c tio n s ] A a n dB a r e s a tis f ie d , o rw h e n th e r e q u ir e m e n ts i n [ s ubs e c t i on] C ar e s a t i s f i e d. ” 20 C . F . R . P t . 404, S ubpt . P , A pp. 1. H e r e , the 1 A L J properl y e xam i ned the re qu i re m ent s of s ub se ct i on s B and C , and con cl ud ed th atM s. B ro w n d i dn o tm eetth ei r cri t eri a. E R 9 7 a-1 0 4 a. T h e A L J co n si d ered M s. B r ow n’ s s ubj e c t i ve c l a i m s r e ga r di ng he rc ondi t i on, m e di c a l e vi de nc e s ubm i tt e d by n u m ero u s ex am i n i n g an dtreat i n g p h ysi ci an s, an da th i rd p arty rep o rtfi l ed b y M s. B r o wn ’ s s i s t e r . Wh i l e Ms . B r o wn p o i n t s t o e v i d e n c e i n h e rf a v o ro n th i s i s s u e , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t c o n tr a rye v id e n c e in th e r e c o r df o rth e A L Jto re ac h the op po si t e c on cl usi on . S ee E R 05 a- 06 a. T he A L J di d n oterr i n h i s det erm i nat i on thatM s. B row n’ s t es t i m on y w as4

notw hol l yc r e di bl e . A n A L Ji s pe rm i tt e d t o r e j e c tac l a i m a nt ’ s t e s t i m onyba s e d on c r e d ib ility , b u t m u s t d o s o w ith s p e c if ic f in d in g s s u p p o rtin g th e c o n c lu s io n . B unne l l v . Sul l i v an , 94 7 F . 2d 34 1, 34 5-46 (9th C i r. 19 91 ) ( en banc). W here , as he r e , the r e i s “ a f

f i rm a t i ve e vi de nc e s ugge s t i ng . . . m a l i nge r i ng” i n the r e c or d, Sm ol en v. Cha ter , 80 F . 3d 1273, 1283- 84 ( 9th C i r . 1996) , the A L J ’ s r e a s ons f or r e j e c t i ng the c l a i m a nt ’ s t e s t i m onyne e d notr e a c h the c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng s ta n d a r d . I

d. ; Carm i c kle v . C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 5 3 3 F .3 d1 1 5 5 , 1 1 6 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; L es terv. Cha ter , 8 1 F .3 d8 2 1 , 8 3 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . I n thi s c a s e , w e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc ourttha tthe A L Jpr ovi de d s pe c i f i c r e a s ons f orhi s c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on, i nc l udi ng M s . B r ow n’ s va gue , unr e s pons i ve te s tim o n ya n din c o n s is te n c ie s in h e rs ta te m e n ts to tr e a tin g a n de x a m in in g d o c to r s . See E R 0 9 a , 1 0 4 a ; s e e al s o T om m as e t t iv . A s tr ue , 53 3 F . 3d 10 35 , 10 39 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( an A L J m aybase an advers e c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on on “ ordi nary t ec hn i qu es of cr edi bi l i ty e val uat i on , ” “ un expl ai ned o r i nadequ at el y e xp l ai ned f a i l ur e t o s e e k tr e a tm e ntort o f ol l ow apr e s c r i be d c our s e of tr e a tm e nt , ” a nd “ the c l a i m a nt ’ s da i l ya c t i vi t i e s ” ) ( quot i ng Sm ol en , 80 F . 3d at12 84 ). W e c on cl ud e that th e A L J ’s c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n w a s s u p p o rte db ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See T h o m a s v. B a rn h a rt , 2 7 8 F . 3 d9 4 7 , 9 5 9 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) (u p h o l d i n g an ad v erse cr edi bi l i ty f

i nd i ng i n p artdu e t o a cl ai m ant ’ s i ncon si st entst at em ent s t o h er5

do ct ors) . T h e A L J d i dn o terr i n h i s co n si d erat i o n o f th e th i rd p arty rep o rtfi l ed b y M s. B row n’ s s i st er , C ornel i a W i l l i am s. “ W hi l e an A L J m ustt ake i nt o acc ou ntl ay w i tness t es t i m on y abo uta c l ai m ant ’ s s ym pt om s, the A L J m aydi sc ou ntthat testim o n y b y p ro v id in g ‘rea so n s th at ar e g er m an e to ea ch w itn es s.’” G reger v . B a rn h a rt , 464 F . 3d 968, 972 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng D o dr ill v . Sh a la la , 12 F . 3d 9 1 5 , 9 1 9 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 3 )). H ere, th e A L J st at ed sp eci fi cal l y th ath e co n si d ered M s. W i l l i am s’ s r eport , bu tthathe di d n otac ce pther c on t ent i on s t o the ext entthatthey contra di ct ed obj ec t i ve evi dence i n the re cord. E R 10 4a. T he A L J not ed further tha the rs t a t e m e nt s di d note s t abl i s h ac om pl e t e i nabi l i tyt o w ork. W e c onc l ude tha tthe A L Jpr ope r l yw e i ghe d M s . W i l l i a m s ’ s r e porti n l i ghtof the e vi de nc e i n the r e c o r d . See B a

yl iss , 42 7 F . 3d at12 18 (not i ng that“ [i ] ncon si st encyw i th m edi ca l evi dence” i s one “ germ ane” re as on for r ej ec t i ng l ayw i tness t es t i m on y) . F i nal l y, the A L J di d n oterr i n con cl ud i ng thatM s. B row n h as the re si du al funct i on al capaci ty t o w ork. A det erm i nat i on of re si du al funct i on al capaci ty “ i s an a s s e s s m e ntof

a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s abi l i tyt o do s us t a i ne d w ork- r e l a t e d phy s i c a l a nd m ent al ac t i vi t i es i n a w ork sett i ng on a r egul arand con t i nu i ng basi s. ” S oc. S ec . R ul i ng 96- 8p, a va i l abl e a thttp: //w w w . s s a . gov/ O P _H om e /rul i ngs / di / 01/ S S R 96- 08- d i- 0 1 .h tm l; se e 20 C . F . R . § 416. 945 ( de f i ni ng r e s i dua l f

unc t i ona l c apa c i tya s “ the6

m o s t y o u c a n s till d o d e s p ite y o u rlim ita tio n s ” ) ; se e al so R eddi ck

v. Cha ter , 157 F .3 d7 1 5 , 7 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . In m aki ng hi s det erm i nat i on , the A L J properl y w ei gh ed the m edi ca l e vi de nc e a va i l abl e t o hi m . T he A L Jw a s r e qui r e d t o w e i gh a nd e va l ua t e the m ed ical ev id en ce in th e r ec o rd , b u t n o t t o ac ce p t all o r n o n e o f a n ex p er t w itn es s’s o p in io n . See M

ag al lan es , 881 F . 2d a t753. W hi l e the tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n’ s opi ni on is typ ic a llya c c o r d e dc o n tr o llin g w e ig h t if it is u n c o n tr a d ic te d , se e H oloh an v. M a ssa n a ri , 24 6 F . 3d 11 95 , 12 02 -03 (9th C i r. 20 01 ), i n thi s c as e, there w as s u b s ta n tia l c o n f

lic tin g e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r ds u p p lie db yo th e rm e d ic a l o p in io n s . E R 9 9 a - 1 0 3 a . M o r e o v e r , th e A L Jc a n r e je c t atr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’s o p in io n if it is

“ bri ef , concl usory, and i nadequ at el y s up po rt ed by cl i ni ca l fi nd i ng s. ” T ho m as v. B a rn h a rt , 27 8 F . 3d 94 7, 95 7 (9th C i r. 20 02 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). H er e, w e a gree w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a n dth e A L Jth a t th e tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’s o p in io n f a ile dto

“ i de nt i f yobj e c t i ve m e di c a l e vi de nc e on w hi c h i ti s ba s e d. ” E R 07a . T he r e f or e , the A L Jdi d note rri n r e l y i ng on the opi ni ons of othe rphy s i c i a ns a nd obj e c t i ve m e di c a l e vi de nc e i n c onc l udi ng tha tM s . B r ow n c oul d pe r f orm c e rt a i n ki nds of w ork and m i gh thave been m al i ng er i ng w i th res pectt o atl ea stsom e of her s y m p to m s . Se e T

hom as , 278 F . 3d a t957 ( “ T he opi ni ons of non- tr e a t i ng or non- e xa m i ni ng phy s i c i a ns m a y[ ] s e rve a s s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e w he n the opi ni ons7

ar e c on si st entw i th i nd ependentcl i ni ca l fi nd i ng s or other e vi dence i n the re cord. ”) . I n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d, the A L J ’ s f i ndi ngs w e r e s upport e d by su b stan ti al ev id en ce . R ea so n ab le p eo p le co u ldd isag re e ab o u t M s. B ro w n ’s d is ab ilitys ta tu s b a s e do n th is r e c o r d . H o w e v e r , “[ w ]h e n e v id e n c e r e a s o n ab ly s u p p o rts e ith e rc o n f

irm in g o rr e v e r s in g th e A L J ’s d e c is io n , w e m a yn o t s u b s titu te ou r j ud gm entfor thatof the A L J. ” B at s on v . C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 359 F .3 d1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e r e f o r e , w e a r e o b lig e dto f o llo w th e A L J ’s d e te rm in a tio n . A FFI R M ED .