NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 24 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEAN PHILIP SCHUYLER, No. 19-15590
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:17-cv-00277-LEK-KSC
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of MEMORANDUM*
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 8, 2020**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: OWENS, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Sean Schuyler applied for social security benefits. An administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) determined that the evidence of his disability supported only
moderate restrictions for his capacity to work and denied him benefits. Schuyler
*
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).
appealed the ALJ’s determination to a district court and the district court reversed,
holding that the ALJ had committed harmful legal error by: 1) rejecting Schuyler’s
testimony that he needed one day off per week without providing specific, clear
and convincing reasons; and 2) rejecting lay evidence regarding Schuyler’s need to
take one day off per week without providing germane reasons. The district court
then determined that “there are no serious doubts as to whether [Schuyler] is or is
not disabled,” and remanded the case for an award of benefits. The Commissioner
of Social Security appeals the district court’s ruling. We affirm in part and reverse
in part.
1. The ALJ erred by rejecting Schuyler’s testimony without providing
specific, clear, and convincing reasons. See Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014). Schuyler testified that at least once a
week he has a “bad day,” on which his symptomatology is more significant, and he
will usually not go into the place where he volunteers, or, if he does, he will not
stay the whole eight hours. Because of his need to take breaks which sometimes
require the entire day off, he testified that he could not complete an ordinary work
week.
Here, in determining that the claimant was only moderately restricted, the
ALJ effectively rejected the claimant’s testimony that he needed one day off per
week. In doing so, the ALJ neither found Schuyler to be malingering, nor did the
2
ALJ provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Schuyler’s
testimony. This was legal error. See id. Because a vocational expert testified
before the ALJ that a claimant who needed one day off per week would not be
employable, that error was not harmless.
2. Several people submitted lay evidence in support of Schuyler’s
disability claim. Testimony from lay witnesses can be disregarded if the ALJ
“gives reasons germane to each witness for doing so.” Turner v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The ALJ is not required to analyze every lay witness’s testimony, “[r]ather, if the
ALJ gives germane reasons for rejecting testimony by one witness, the ALJ need
only point to those reasons when rejecting similar testimony by a different
witness.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded by
regulation on other grounds.
The ALJ did provide germane reasons for rejecting the lay evidence. He
rejected the lay evidence because he found it inconsistent with the opinions of
medical professionals and inconsistent with Schuyler’s medical evaluations. The
ALJ also rejected the lay evidence because he found it inconsistent with Schuyler’s
daily activities. Either reason that the ALJ provided for rejecting the lay testimony
is legally sufficient. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005).
3
3. When an ALJ has committed harmful error, we generally remand the
case to the agency for further proceedings. Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1099. However,
in “rare circumstances,” we may reverse and “remand for an award of benefits.”
Id. at 1100 (citation omitted). This case is not one of those rare circumstances.
Upon review of the record, it is not sufficiently clear that Schuyler could not
sustain regular work. Indeed, several medical professionals opined that he likely
could. Further factual development is warranted on this point. We therefore
remand this case to the district court and instruct it to remand to the ALJ so the
ALJ may resolve this factual dispute and reconsider its residual functional capacity
finding in light of Schuyler’s testimony that he needs one day off per week. See id.
at 1102.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further
proceedings. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
4