Lellhame
Lellhame v. Barnhart
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Appellant Charlotte I. Lellhame (“Lell-hame”) appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of disability benefits. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a district court’s decision to affirm a determination of the Social Security Administration de novo. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2000). The court must review the record and affirm the Commissioner’s determination if it is supported by “substantial evidence” and based on correct legal standards. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir.2001). We reverse and remand.
The opinions of Dr. Lakshmi Neena Ma-direddi and Dr. Norman Wheeler are “substantial evidence” supporting the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) determination that Lellhame is capable of performing “medium work.” The ALJ failed, however, to apply and document the “special technique” for evaluating Lellhame’s alleged depression. See 20 C.F.R. § 404 .1520a (establishing procedure). Therefore, we remand on this issue.