N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GAIL E. C R

AIG, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r, Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-36111 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-05469-R B L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 5, 2016 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB ER , B ER

ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Ga il C ra ig a

p pe a ls the de nia l of his a

pplic at ion for Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc o m e be n e fits. W e re v i e w the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision denovo a nd will “ se t
a side a de nia l of be ne fits only

if it is not supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e or is 

# FIL ED MAY27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.ba se d on le ga l e rror.” Linge nfe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th C ir. 2007)

(c ita tion omitte d). W e re ve rse and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. To re je c t the c o ntra dic te d opinion of a n e xam ining phy sic ia

n, the
a dm inistra

tive la w judge (ALJ) m

ust give“ spe c i fic and le gitim a te re a sons tha t a re supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord.” Leste r v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th C ir. 1996). He re , the ALJ’ s re a sons for re je c ting theopinions of
e xam ining m e nta l he a lth Drs. W he e le r and Krue ge r we re not le gitim a te . The se doc tors’ opinions we re supporte d by obje c tive e vide nc e , a

nd the ALJ ga

ve no le gitim ate re a son to distinguish the m from Dr. B urke ’ s . Se e Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 634–35 (9th C ir. 2007) (holding tha t a n ALJ e rre d by

re je c ting a doc tor’ s opinion on the ba s is tha

t it la c ke d obje c tive support whe re the re a c tua l ly wa s obje c tive e v ide nc e of re l e va nt im pa irm e nts); Leste r , 81 F.3d a t 832 (holding tha

t the fa c t tha

t a n e xam ining phy sic ia

n’ s opinion wa s only ba se d on limite d obse rvation wa s “ n ot a

re a son to give

pre fe re nc e to the opinion of a doc tor who ha s
ne v e r e xam ine d the c l a im ant” ). Nor c ould the ALJ le gitim a t e ly disc ount Dr. W he e le r’ s opinion on the ground tha

t C ra i g wa s se e king be ne fits a t the tim e of his
e xam ination, se e Leste r , 81 F.3d a t 832, tha t C ra ig fa ile d to se e k tre a tm e nt for his de pre s sion, se e N

guy e n v . C

hate r , 100 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th C ir. 1996), or tha t

Pa ge 2 of 4C ra ig wa s dia gnose d with a “ s ingle e pisode ” of m a

jor de pre s sion, se e Embre y v . Bow e n , 849 F.2d 418, 421–22 (9th C ir. 1988). The ALJ’ s e rrors re nde re d the voc a tiona l e xpe rt’ s te stim o ny m e aningle ss. Se e id. at 422. As a

re sult, theALJ’ s nondisa b i lity de te rm inat ion wa s not supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Se e B ray v . C o mm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th C ir. 2009). 2. Whe re the re is obje c tive e vide nc e tha t a c la im an t ha s a

m e dic a l im pa irm e nt tha

t c ould re a s ona

bly c a u se the sym

ptom s c om

pla ine d of, a

nd the re is
no e vide n c e of m a linge ring, the ALJ m ust provide“ c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons” to re je c t the c la im ant’ s te s tim ony a bout the e xte nt of his sy

m ptom s. Linge nfe lte r , 504 F.3d a

t 1036. Inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n the c la im ant’ s te stim ony and the
m e dic a l e vide nc e or his da ily a c tivitie s provide c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for the A LJ to find the

te stim ony not c re dible
. Se e Rollins v . Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th C ir. 2001). He re , C ra ig’ s te stim ony wa s inc onsiste nt with thepostsurge ry m e dic a l e vide nc e an d his re porte d da i ly a c tivitie s . The ALJ ga

v e c le ar and
c onvinc i ng re a sons to find C ra i g’ s te stim o ny not fully c re dible
. Se e id
. 3. W e re ve rse and re m and for the ALJ to de te rm ine C ra ig’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity and a bility to find work, c re diting the opinions of Drs. W

he e le r
and Krue ge r. Pa ge 3 of 4RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

Pa ge 4 of 4