FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LISA ANN YORK-SPANN, No. 09-16972
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV 08-01371-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 6, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Claimant Lisa Ann York-Spann appeals from a district court decision
affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of
disability benefits. We review de novo a district court’s order upholding such a
denial. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). We "may set
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it
is based on legal error." Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453,
1457 (9th Cir. 1995). Because of legal errors, we reverse and remand for
reconsideration of the disability determination.
Although the administrative law judge ("ALJ") acknowledged that
Claimant’s impairments were "severe" when considered in combination, the ALJ
failed to give due consideration to evidence in the record relating to limitations
attributable to Claimant’s severe bipolar disorder. Medical records from New
Arizona Family documenting Claimant’s Global Assessment of Functioning score
of 38 and a diagnosis describing Claimant as "seriously mentally ill" went
unmentioned in the ALJ’s decision. An ALJ "must explain why significant
probative evidence has been rejected. " Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395
(9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The ALJ also completely failed to consider Alma Davis’ third party
description of Claimant’s extensive work limitations. Ms. Davis’ statement was
competent evidence: she spoke from personal knowledge, and her period of
observation included the initial portion of the claimed period of disability. See
Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053, 1056 (9th Cir. 2006)
(lay witness testimony concerning a claimant’s ability to work "cannot be
2
disregarded without comment" unless "no reasonable ALJ, when fully crediting the
testimony, could have reached a different disability determination" (emphasis and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
The ALJ committed further legal error by discounting Claimant’s husband’s
statement for the reason that, as a family member, the husband was concerned for
Claimant’s well-being. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1289 (9th Cir. 1996)
("The fact that a lay witness is a family member cannot be a ground for rejecting
his or her testimony.").
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3