Jeffrey Churchill v. Carolyn W. Colvin , 616 F. App'x 340 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2015
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JEFFREY FARRELL CHURCHILL, No. 13-35578
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05580-KLS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Karen L. Strombom, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 4, 2015
Seattle, Washington
Before: NOONAN, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Churchill appeals the district court’s order upholding the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his request for Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
vacate and remand.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
We review de novo the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s
denial of benefits. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). We
will reverse such a decision only if it is based on legal error or is not supported by
substantial evidence. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Churchill was not disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act, and therefore was not entitled to SSI
benefits. The ALJ relied on the conclusions of Dr. Linda Jansen, Dr. Kent Reade,
and Dr. Mary A. Gentile. She rejected the opinion of Dr. David Moore, who
evaluated Churchill for the Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services pursuant to Churchill’s application for welfare benefits. The ALJ stated
only that “Dr. Moore’s opinion is not supported by the objective medical
evidence,” and therefore granted it “little weight.” The ALJ also failed to include
Dr. Moore’s objective clinical findings in her list of objective medical evidence.
To reject an uncontradicted opinion of an examining doctor, an ALJ must
state clear and convincing reasons for doing so. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d
747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). If an examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by
another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may only reject the former by providing specific
and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence. Bayliss v.
Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Dr. Moore’s
-2-
opinion contradicted Dr. Jansen’s. We thus agree with the district court that the
ALJ’s “reason for rejecting Dr. Moore’s opinion is insufficient, as it gives little
guidance as to the specific evidence the ALJ actually reviewed and found to be
inconsistent with [Dr. Moore’s] opinion.” However, ignoring Dr. Moore’s opinion
was not harmless. Had the ALJ incorporated Dr. Moore’s findings into the
hypothetical presented to the vocational expert, the expert may have testified that
Churchill was unable to maintain any employment.
We thus vacate and remand to the district court to remand to the ALJ to
properly consider how much weight to give Dr. Moore’s findings. If the ALJ finds
it appropriate to incorporate those findings into a new hypothetical, she may hold a
hearing where the new hypothetical is presented to the vocational expert. Costs
awarded to Churchill.
VACATED and REMANDED.
-3-