Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration , 472 F. App'x 580 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 26 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JIMMIE LEON MARTIN,                              No. 10-17674
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01017-CMK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
    SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 14, 2012 **
    San Francisco, California
    Before: THOMAS, FISHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    The administrative law judge (ALJ) erred when formulating Martin’s
    residual functional capacity (RFC) because the RFC neither incorporated Dr.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Steiner’s opinion of Martin’s work limitations nor gave specific and legitimate
    reasons for rejecting it. See Lester v. Chater, 
    81 F.3d 821
    , 830–31 (9th Cir. 1996).
    The limitations assessed by Dr. Steiner were potentially inconsistent with the
    ALJ’s determination that Martin could engage in “light work.” See 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1567
    (b); see also SSR 83-10. As a result, the VE’s testimony based on the
    flawed RFC had no evidentiary value. See Embrey v. Bowen, 
    849 F.2d 418
    ,
    422–23 (9th Cir. 1988). In evaluating Martin’s RFC on remand, the ALJ should
    address Dr. Steiner’s opinion.
    The ALJ did not err in discrediting Martin’s testimony as to the severity of
    Martin’s pain. The ALJ provided “specific, clear and convincing” reasons and
    cited multiple portions of the record that were inconsistent with assertions of total
    disability. See Smolen v. Chater, 
    80 F.3d 1273
    , 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). These
    reasons were also germane to discredit the testimony of Martin’s wife, see
    Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    574 F.3d 685
    , 694 (9th Cir. 2009), but
    because the ALJ did not specifically comment on this testimony, the ALJ should
    do so on remand.
    The district court shall remand this case to the Commissioner for
    proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition. The parties shall bear
    their own costs on appeal.
    2
    AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
    3