Tracy Sisson v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Tracy Sisson appeals the denial of her application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.2001). We reverse the administrative law judge’s decision only when it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id.

Sisson contends that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to fully credit her testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her tremors. We agree. The ALJ should not have discounted Sisson’s testimony about the limiting effects of her tremors based on her reported activities because none of the evidence in the record contradicts her assertion that her tremors are only intermittently severely limiting. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1995).

Next, Sisson contends that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree. The ALJ did not set forth legitimate reasons for attributing limited weight to Dr. Duckworth’s opinion that Sisson is limited to sedentary exertion…