FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLA DENISE PRICE, No. 14-16734
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01344-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 1, 2016**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D. W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Carla Denise Price appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of 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).
Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and
remand to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to provide specific, clear, and
convincing reasons supporting the determination that Price’s reported daily
activities were not consistent with someone who is disabled. See Garrison v.
Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2014). None of Price’s daily activities
contradict her testimony regarding the intensity, persistence or limiting effects of
her symptoms, and the ALJ failed to offer any explanation of how they might. See
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007). Additionally, Price’s testimony
was consistent with her prior self-reports, including functional reports and reports
to medical providers. See Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1164. Moreover, the ALJ failed to
identify any activities or physical functions that Price engaged in that are
transferable to a work setting. Orn, 495 F.3d at 639. Accordingly, the ALJ failed
to provide clear, convincing, and specific reasons to discredit Price’s physical
symptom testimony. See Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir.
2015).
The ALJ also failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for according
little weight to the opinion of Price’s treating physician, Dr. Shillito. The ALJ
2
gave little weight to Dr. Shillito’s opinions because the limitations Dr. Shillito
described were inconsistent with Price’s activities of daily living. The ALJ’s
reasoning, however, rests on the same flawed reasoning as the reasoning regarding
Price’s discredited physical symptom testimony. Additionally, although Dr.
Shillito is not a specialist, that factor alone does not constitute a sufficient reason
for giving little weight to his opinions, and the ALJ’s decision does not reflect a
weighing of the factors relevant a treating physician’s opinion. See Ghanim, 763
F.3d at 1161; Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988).
We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment affirming the ALJ’s denial
of benefits. Because we conclude that critical factual issues remain unresolved,
and that further proceedings will be useful, we instruct the district court to remand
this case to the agency for further proceedings. See Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at
496; Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir.
2014).
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3