FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 13 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIETA ALVAREZ, No. 12-56612
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-07444-VBK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Victor B. Kenton, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 7, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: BYBEE, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Julieta Alvarez appeals from the district court’s order affirming the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
The ALJ did not err in discounting the opinion of Alvarez’s treating
physician, Dr. Larsen, while giving more weight to the findings of Dr. Rosco and
Dr. Rosenberg, because the ALJ provided “specific and legitimate reasons
supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715,
725 (9th Cir. 1998). The ALJ explained that Dr. Larsen’s opinion conflicted with
evidence in the record, while the opinions of Dr. Rosco and Dr. Rosenberg were
consistent with each other and with the evidence in the record. Because the ALJ is
obliged to make a disability determination based on social security law, the ALJ
was not bound by Dr. Larsen’s finding that Alvarez was temporarily totally
disabled for purposes of California workers’ compensation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504.
We also reject Alvarez’s argument that the ALJ was obliged to credit Dr. Larsen’s
reports because he credited Dr. Pollis’s reports. Among other reasons, Dr. Pollis’s
reports were substantially different than Dr. Larsen’s reports.
The ALJ’s determination of the onset date of Alvarez’s disability is not
supported by substantial evidence. At an administrative hearing on May 23, 2011,
the ALJ stated that if he credited the assessment of Alvarez performed by Dr.
Pollis in February 2011, Alvarez was disabled as of February 2011 and had been
disabled for two years prior to that date, so that her disability onset date was
February 2009. In his opinion, however, the ALJ credited Dr. Pollis’s report but
2
concluded that the disability onset date was February 2011. The ALJ did not
explain the inconsistency between this date and his prior opinion that the onset date
was February 2009; nor did he call a medical expert to resolve the ambiguity in the
record. See Armstrong v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 160 F.3d 587, 590 (9th Cir.
1998) (noting that Social Security regulations require an ALJ to “call a medical
expert to assist in determining the onset date” of disability “where a record is
ambiguous as to the onset date”). We therefore remand for the ALJ to determine
the correct disability onset date based on evidence in the record and, if necessary,
the assistance of a medical expert.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3