Lorraine Peterson v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Lorraine Peterson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the ALJ’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

The ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of Peterson’s treating physician, Dr. Teresa Bormann. “A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to ‘substantial weight.’” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988)). “When evidence in the record contradicts the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must present ‘specific and legitimate reasons’ for discounting the treating physician’s opinion, supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, the ALJ stated Dr. Bormann’s opinion was “not consistent with the objective medical evidence and the claimant’s activities,” but failed to specifically identify any objective medical evidence or activities that undermine Dr. Bormann’s opinion. The ALJ mentioned only another physician’s recommendation that…