Gina Samuels v. Carolyn Colvin

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

AUG 02 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GINA L. SAMUELS, No. 14-15989

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01665-JAT

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 11, 2016 San Francisco, California

Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Gina L. Samuels appeals from the district court order affirming the

Administrative Law Judge’s denial of her application for supplemental security

income under the Social Security Act. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1. The ALJ provided “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for discounting

Samuels’s testimony on the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effect” of her

symptoms. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

Smolen v. Chater,…

MEMORANDUM *

Gina L. Samuels appeals from the district court order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of her application for supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. We affirm.

1. The ALJ provided “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for discounting Samuels’s testimony on the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effect” of her symptoms. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996)). Samuels’s self-reported activities, the objective medical evidence, and Samuels’s failure to seek more aggressive treatment were inconsistent with Samuels’s estimation of her abilities. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that applicant’s description of her childcare activities was inconsistent with her claim that her pain from fibro-myalgia prevented her from any gainful activity); see also Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an ALJ may consider objective medical evidence as a factor “in his credibility analysis”). Though the ALJ made some errors when describing Samuels’s medical history, the errors were ultimately harmless…

dissenting:

The ALJ’s decision in this case suffers from two major flaws: The ALJ failed to provide valid grounds for discounting Sam-uels’ credibility, and the ALJ did not properly weigh the opinions of the medical professionals who treated Samuels.

First, the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for discrediting Samuels’ allegations about the intensity and effects of her symptoms. In concluding that Samuels’ activities of daily living were inconsistent with her subjective complaints, the ALJ found -it “[m]ost signifi-cante]” that Samuels has been “able to care for her young children at home ... without any particular assistance.” But the record does not show that Samuels has been able to care for her children, or perform other household tasks, without assistance. As in Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014), where we reversed the ALJ for making a similar error, Samuels emphasized that she had help, primarily from her teenage daughter, in performing routine daily activities, and that she was regularly unable to do laundry, prepare meals, or carry grocery bags by herself. See id. at 1015-16 .

The ALJ also found Samuels’ subjective complaints inconsistent…