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 and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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 REN D Y PA RK ER, 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 om m i s s i one rof S o ci al S ecu ri ty, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56664 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 7 0 0 8 - AN 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 o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A rthurN a ka z a t o, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 8, 2012 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: T H O M A S , W A R D L A W , an d B E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R e n d y P a rk e rap p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h e rap p lic a tio n f

o rs o c ia l s e c u r ity di s abi l i ty i ns ur a nc e be ne f i t s a nd s uppl e m e nt a l s e c ur i ty i nc om e unde rT i t l e s I I a nd X V I of the S oc i a l S e c ur i ty A c t . B e c aus e w e a r e unabl e t o de t e rm i ne the ba s i s f or 

# FI LED MA R 29 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

th e A p p eal s C o u n ci l ’ s d eci si o n o r ad eq u at el y ev al u at e i t s co n cl u si o n s, w e rev erse a n d r e m a n d . Se e G onz alezv . Sul l i v an , 91 4 F . 2d 11 97 , 12 00 (9th C i r. 19 90 ). P ark er arg u es th atth e A p p eal s C o u n ci l erred i n co n cl u d i n g th ath er p ast w ork w as as a bi l l col l ec t i on cl erk. In so concl ud i ng , the A pp ea l s C ou nci l re j ec t ed th e f in d in g o f th e A L J , w h ic h w a s b a s e d o n th e te s tim o n y o f av o c a tio n a l e x p e rt, tha tP a rke r ’ s pa s tw ork w a s a s ac a rr e pos s e s s or . A tthe F e brua ry 11, 2009, h eari n g , th e v o cat i o n al ex p erti n i t i al l y t est i fi ed th atP ark er’ s p astw o rkw as b est cl assi fi ed as “ b i l l co l l ect i o n cl erk ” b u tth en , aft er h eari n g P ark er’ s t est i m o n y, co n clu d ed th at “carre p o ss es so r” m o re ac cu ra tely ca p tu re d h erlast jo b . P ar k er ’s t e s t i m ony a tthe he a r i ng w a s tha ts he l e f tthe of f i c e t o a rr a nge f

orthe r e pos s e s s i on o f c a r s c o n s is te n tly “th r o u g h o u t aw o rkw e e k .” T h is te s tim o n y f o rm e d th e b a s is f o rth e v o c a tio n a l e x p e rt’s c o n c lu s io n a n d , in tu rn , f o rth e A L J ’s d is ab ility d e te rm in a tio n . If thi s t es t i m on y w er e a cc ept ed and credi t ed, then i tdo es i nd ee d app ear that th e A p p ea ls C o u n cil’ s c o n clu sio n w o u ldh av e to b e r ev er se d , as P ar k er ’s de s c r i pt i on of

he rj ob dut i e s a nd the “ bi l l c ol l e c t i on c l e rk” j ob a s s i gne d by the A pp ea l s C ou nci l j ustdo no tm at ch. B uti n fac t , the A pp ea l s C ou nci l never m e n tio n e d th is s ig n if

ic a n t, p r o b a tiv e e v id e n c e in its d e c is io n . Se e V in c e n t ex r e l. V i ncent v. H ec kler , 73 9 F . 2d 13 93 , 13 95 (9th C i r. 19 84 ).3

W e c a n n o t te ll th e r e a s o n f o rth is v a c u u m . I t is p o s s ib le th a t th e A p p e a ls C ou nci l m eantt o rej ec tP arker’ s t es t i m on y a tthe 20 09 hear i ng re gardi ng her f orm e rj ob a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th he rt e s t i m ony on the s a m e s ubj e c ta tthe he a r i ngs on the e a r l i e rappl i c a t i on. E ve n s o, “ w e m us tr e ve r s e be c aus e no e xpl i c i tf i ndi ng a s t o [ P a rke r ’ s ] c r e di bi l i ty w a s m a de ” r e ga r di ng thi s c r i t i c a l i s s ue , a nd r e m a nd f or f u rth e re x p la n a tio n . A lbalos v . Sul l i v an , 9 0 7 F .2 d8 7 1 , 8 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ; se e al so H ow ard v. H

ec kler , 78 2 F . 2d 14 84 , 14 87 (9th C i r. 19 86 ). T he A ppe a l s C ounc i l a l s o i ndi c a t e d tha tthe A L J ha d c om m i tt e d a n e rr orof la w b y r e o p e n in g th e d e c is io n r e g a r d in g P a rk e r ’s p a s t w o rkth a t w a s m a d e in re spon se t o h erprevi ou s app l i ca t i on s. B ec ause P arker a l l eged “ changed ci rc um st ance s i nd i ca t i ng a gre at erdi sabi l i ty, ” s peci fi ca l l y, thatshe had re ac hed “a d v a n c e d a g e ,” r e s ju d ic a tad id n o t b a rr e c o n s id e r a tio n o f h e rd is ab ility ap p lic a tio n . Cha vez v . B ow en , 84 4 F . 2d 69 1, 69 3 (9th C i r. 19 88 ) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ; S o c ia l S e c u r ity A c q u ie s c e n c e R u lin g ( A R ) 9 7 - 4 ( 9 ) . N e i the rthe A L J northe A ppe a l s C ounc i l di s c us s e d, how e ve r , w he the r“ ne w a nd m a t e r i a l e vi de nc e ” e xi s t e d s uf f i c i e ntt o de f

e a tc l a i m pr e c l us i on a s appl i e d t o the p r e v io u s A L J ’s s p e c if

ic f in d in g r e g a r d in g P ark e r ’s p a s t w o rk . See Cha vez , 844 F . 2d a t694; A R 97- 4( 9) . I ti s pos s i bl e tha tthe A ppe a l s C ounc i l di d notm e nt i on P a rke r ’ s 2009 t e s t i m ony a s t o he rj ob dut i e s be c aus e i tbe l i e ve d tha the rt e s t i m ony4

w a s n o t “n e w a n d m a te r ia l,” a s it c o n c e rn e d an o n c h a n g in g m a tte ra lr e a d y d e c id e d . B u t, a g a in , w e c a n n o t a f f irm o n ag r o u n d n e v e ra rtic u la te d . B r ay v . C om m ’ rof Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 55 4 F . 3d 12 19 , 12 25 –2 6 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). T hus , a l though i ti s pos s i bl e tha tthe A ppe a l s C ounc i l ’ s de c i s i on l e f tout P a rk e r ’s 2 0 0 9 te s tim o n y o n o n e o f th e tw o g r o u n d s in d ic a te d , w e c a n n o t e v a lu a te any s uch u nart i cul at ed re as on s a tthi s s t age. Inst ea d, w e r em and t o the di stri ct c o u rt, w ith in s tru c tio n s to r e m a n d to th e S e c r e ta ry f o rf u rth e re x p la n a tio n o f

its hol di ng. R E VE R S E D an d R E MAND E D.