NAOMI MARSH V. NANCY BERRYHILL, No. 15-17306 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 11 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NAOMI FAWN MARSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-17306 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02096-CRB v. MEMORANDUM* NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 13, 2017 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON,** District Judge. While the Social Security Administration (SSA) is “responsible for making the determination or decision about whether [a claimant meets] the statutory * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation. page 2 definition of disability,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), Dr. Betat’s chart note contained information about Marsh’s condition and capacity that went beyond a mere statement of disability. These findings informed his assessment that she “appear[ed] to be disabled.” The ALJ therefore erred by neither considering Dr. Betat’s opinion nor providing reasons to reject it. “In order to reject an examining physician’s opinion, the ALJ has to give clear and convincing reasons.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, SSA’s position was not substantially justified. See, e.g., Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To avoid an award of EAJA fees . . . the government must show that its position was substantially justified at each stage of the proceedings.”). REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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.