Jessica Bixler v. Carolyn W. Colvin ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 21 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JESSICA BIXLER,                                     No. 13-35864
    Plaintiff - Appellant,                D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03045-TOR
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of
    the Social Security Administration,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted July 6, 2015
    Seattle, Washington
    Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Jessica Bixler appeals the district court’s affirmance of the denial of her
    application for Social Security Supplemental Security Income. We vacate and
    remand for further proceedings.
    The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in evaluating the vocational
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    expert’s testimony. The ALJ discounted Bixler’s first hypothetical even though
    that hypothetical was based on evidence—Section I of a Mental Residual
    Functional Capacity Assessment (“MRFCA”), from an acceptable medical
    source—that the ALJ herself had previously credited. The ALJ’s stated reasons
    for rejecting Bixler’s first hypothetical to the vocational expert contradict the
    ALJ’s decision to credit Section I of the MRFCA.
    Because the vocational expert’s testimony was critical to the ALJ’s analysis
    at step five, see Tackett v. Apfel, 
    180 F.3d 1094
    , 1100-02 (9th Cir. 1999), we
    cannot say that the ALJ’s error in evaluating that testimony was harmless. We do
    not reach the question of whether there was substantial evidence on the record as a
    whole supporting the denial of benefits, because the ALJ’s errors in analysis
    require further proceedings. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment and
    remand to the district court with instructions to remand this case to the agency for
    further proceedings.
    We need not reach Bixler’s other arguments. Costs on appeal are awarded
    to Bixler.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-35864

Judges: Kleinfeld, Nguyen, Friedland

Filed Date: 7/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024