HARRIS v. BERRYHILL (2018)

ORDER

The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED as moot. The Memorandum Disposition filed on December 12, 2017 is withdrawn.

MEMORANDUM *

Shalom Harris appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Harris’s application for supplemental security income disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015), and we reverse and remand.

The ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Hendrickson’s uncontroverted opinion, as an expert who actually examined Harris, that she showed marked limitations in interacting appropriately with supervisors. The ALJ’s finding that Harris was capable of getting along with her medical providers and people who were not her family members does not address the critical issue of getting along with supervisors in a work setting. Moreover, Diane Fligstein, PhD., and Gary Nelson, PhD., who reviewed mental health records but did not examine Harris, specifically opined that Harris had a moderately limited ability to interact with non-family members, specifically members of the public and co-workers.

The error is not harmless. The questions to the vocational expert did not include marked limitations in interacting appropriately with supervisors. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2005) (An ALJ may rely on the vocational expert’s testimony that a claimant can perform other work only if the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert includes all of the claimant’s limitations).¹

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because remand is appropriate on this ground, we do not address the remaining alternative grounds for relief.