ELIZABETH PEREZ V. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, No. 12-15187 (9th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 09 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELIZABETH ANN PEREZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-15187 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01887-NVW v. MEMORANDUM* CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 4, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Elizabeth Perez appeals the district court s decision affirming the Commissioner s denial of disability insurance benefits. We reverse and remand. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Perez argues that the administrative law judge ( ALJ ) failed to consider the mental health assessment conducted by her treating physician, Dr. Rooney. We agree. Based on the record before us, it is unclear whether the ALJ adequately considered Dr. Rooney s opinion about the claimant s mental limitations. Although the ALJ discussed and gave reasons for rejecting Dr. Rooney s physical residual functional capacity assessment, he did not specifically discuss or reject the doctor s separate assessment of the claimant s mental ability to do work. The ALJ failed to state whether he considered Dr. Rooney a treating physician in evaluating the claimant s mental limitations and essentially rejected a key element of Dr. Rooney s opinion without giving any reasons for doing so. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1038 n.10 (9th Cir. 2007). We reverse and remand for further proceedings at which the ALJ should consider Dr. Rooney s opinion regarding plaintiff s depression and afford it the weight the ALJ deems appropriate. We decline to address the remaining issues raised by Perez. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.