NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMY HOLBROOK, No. 15-35552
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-03039-FVS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 28, 2017**
Before: D.W. NELSON, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Amy Holbrook appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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, Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010), and we reverse and
remand.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed adequately to consider a
Washington State decision finding Holbrook disabled approximately four months
prior to her alleged Social Security disability onset date. See Social Security
Ruling 06-03p (stating that “evidence of a disability decision by another
governmental or nongovernmental agency cannot be ignored and must be
considered”). The ALJ failed to provide persuasive, specific, and valid reasons for
not according the Washington State decision great weight. See Berry, 622 F.3d at
1236 (holding that a decision of another agency is ordinarily entitled to great
weight when that agency’s disability program bears a “marked similarity” to the
Social Security disability program); Wash. Admin. Code § 182-512-0050 (2014)
(previously codified as Wash. Admin. Code § 388-475-0050) (providing for use of
the five-step Social Security analytic framework).
The ALJ’s error was not harmless because we cannot say that it was
inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination. See Treichler v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014). We therefore
reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to remand to the
agency for further proceedings. See id. at 1100-02.
2
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3