Karen Mattox v. Commissioner of Social Securit

MEMORANDUM

Karen Mattox (“Mattox”) appeals the adverse summary judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We reverse and remand.

We review a district court’s order affirming denial of social security benefits de novo, Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 590 (9th Cir.2009), and we may set aside the Commissioner’s denial of benefits when the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 591 . However, “where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,” we must affirm the decision of the ALJ. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir.1995).

Even assuming Mattox’s waiver of her right to counsel was improper, the ALJ developed a record in this case that was neither ambiguous nor inadequate to preclude a proper evaluation of the evidence, see Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir.2001), meaning Mattox was not prejudiced in the proceeding. Vidal v. Harris, 637 F.2d 710, 714 (9th Cir.1981).

The ALJ did, however, fail to provide a clear and convincing…