Scott Snoeck v. Carolyn Colvin

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 09 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT A. SNOECK, No. 13-35327
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00031-SEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 29, 2014**
Seattle, Washington
Before: NOONAN, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Scott Snoeck (“Snoeck”) appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying
his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The
*
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).
facts are well known to the parties and will not be repeated here except only to the
extent necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and reverse and remand.
We review the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of
benefits de novo. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). We
will reverse the Commissioner’s decision only if the Administrative Law Judge’s
(“ALJ”) findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial
evidence. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002).
The ALJ rejected the opinion of Dr. Charles Marler (“Dr. Marler”), Snoeck’s
treating physician, limiting Snoeck to 20 hours of work per week. To reject the
uncontroverted opinion of a treating physician, as in this case, the ALJ must
provide clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the
record. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). We conclude
that the ALJ’s reasons do not meet this standard.
“The clear and convincing standard is the most demanding required in Social
Security cases.” Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th
Cir. 2002). Here, the ALJ fell far short of providing “clear and convincing”
reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ’s first
reason—that Dr. Marler’s opinion “is not adequately explained or supported by
2
treatment notes and the conclusion is not related to substantive mental clinical
findings”—is neither clear nor convincing because the ALJ simply concluded that
Dr. Marler’s opinion is insufficient without providing specific reasons
accompanied by references to the evidence. If the ALJ had referenced the
treatment notes and medical records and evaluated the extent to which they are
consistent or inconsistent with Dr. Marler’s opinion limiting Snoeck to 20 hours of
work per week, his decision to reject Dr. Marler’s opinion might have passed
muster under the “clear and convincing” standard. But the ALJ neither interpreted
nor explained how the medical records are insufficient to support Dr. Marler’s
opinion.
The ALJ’s second reason for rejecting Dr. Marler’s opinion—that Snoeck
“denied symptoms during therapy sessions with [therapist] Kennedy in the past
year and half and he was stable and doing well on an effective medication regimen
without complaint of significant adverse side effects”—is also neither clear nor
convincing because it lacks specificity and analysis. The ALJ failed to identify the
relevant “symptoms” or “adverse side effects” and explain how they undermined
Dr. Marler’s opinion. Further, the ALJ did not give any reasons why Dr. Marler’s
opinion should be rejected outright simply because Snoeck reported that he was
3
doing well on an effective medication regimen. Thus, we conclude that the ALJ’s
reasons for rejecting Dr. Marler’s opinion were legally insufficient.
We reverse and remand to the district court to remand to the ALJ for further
proceedings taking into account the treating doctor’s statement limiting Snoeck to
working 20 hours per week. The ALJ should also reconsider other issues that may
be affected by the ALJ’s error, including (1) whether Snoeck’s allegation that he
cannot work more than 20 hours per week due to pain and/or bipolar symptoms is
credible; (2) whether Dr. Robert Bateen’s finding that Snoeck is moderately
limited in his ability to complete a normal workday and workweek without
interruptions is consistent with the medical evidence; and (3) whether the
hypothetical question presented to the vocational expert included all of Snoeck’s
limitations.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
4