Barbara Webber v. Carolyn Colvin
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Barbara Webber appeals from a denial of supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleges that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly discounted testimony from her and her examiners, which then allowed the ALJ to pose to the vocational expert an incomplete hypothetical that omitted her reports of daily crying. Because the ALJ’s errors in finding Ms. Webber not credible raise serious doubts as to whether there was substantial evidence for denial of benefits, we reverse the district court and remand to the ALJ.
We must uphold the Social Security Administration’s disability determination unless it contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006); 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g), 1383(c)(3). If a claimant has produced objective medical evidence of an impairment, and if the ALJ did not find “affirmative evidence” of malingering, “the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996).