Brandy Beltz v. Nancy Berryhill , 679 F. App'x 576 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAR 02 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BRANDY M. BELTZ, No. 14-35474
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05080-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 28, 2017**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Brandy Beltz appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Beltz’s application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104,
1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We reverse the district court’s decision and remand to the
administrative law judge (ALJ) for consideration of the new medical evidence
submitted to the Appeals Council.
The district court erred in concluding that the new medical evidence was not
sufficient to call into question the propriety of the ALJ’s ultimate non-disability
determination. The new medical evidence calls into question whether, considering
the record as a whole, the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[I]n
conducting our review, we must consider the entire record as a whole and may not
affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted)).
At each step in the sequential evaluation, the ALJ evaluated and relied on the
medical evidence that was in the record in at the time the unfavorable decision was
issued in Beltz’s case. A review of the entire administrative record, including the
new medical evidence, calls into question the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the ALJ’s determinations at steps three through five, and introduces new
conflicts in the evidence that require a re-assessment of the credibility of Beltz’s
symptom testimony and the statements of lay witnesses. See Taylor v. Comm’r of
2 14-35474
Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1235 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the new medical
evidence sheds additional light on the nature, extent, and persistence of Beltz’s
alleged disability, we remand to permit the ALJ to account for the new evidence in
conducting each step in the five-step sequential analysis. Id. at 1233.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3 14-35474