Renee Agnew-Currie v. Carolyn W. Colvin , 579 F. App'x 578 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
RENEE ELIZABETH AGNEW-CURRIE, No. 12-16723 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01953-JAT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 11, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Claimant Renee Elizabeth Agnew-Currie appeals the district court’s order
remanding this case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the
administrative law judge ("ALJ") to reconsider all evidence in this case. We
affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1. The government argues that we must accept the ALJ’s adverse credibility
determination for purposes of this appeal. Although we doubt that our review is so
constrained, we need not decide the issue here because we reach the same
conclusion either way. Assuming that we have the authority to review the ALJ’s
adverse credibility determination, substantial evidence supports that determination
because the ALJ provided "specific, clear and convincing reasons." Molina v.
Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2. As the government conceded in its motion to remand for good cause, the
ALJ failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the medical opinions of Dr.
Mildred DeJesus, Dr. Teresa Lanier, Nurse Lois Henderson, and Dr. Howard
Mason. Because those opinions may have depended, in whole or in part, on
Claimant’s self-reported symptoms, we affirm the district court’s decision to
remand this case for further proceedings. See McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d
599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989) ("There may be evidence in the record to which the
Secretary can point to provide the requisite specific and legitimate reasons for
disregarding the testimony of [the claimant’s] treating physician. Then again, there
may not be. In any event, the Secretary is in a better position than this court to
perform this task.").
AFFIRMED.
2