AMY HOLBROOK V. NANCY BERRYHILL, No. 15-35552 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMY HOLBROOK, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-35552 D.C. No. 1:14-cv-03039-FVS v. MEMORANDUM * NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 28, 2017** Before: D.W. NELSON, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Amy Holbrook appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the * 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). Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010), and we reverse and remand. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed adequately to consider a Washington State decision finding Holbrook disabled approximately four months prior to her alleged Social Security disability onset date. See Social Security Ruling 06-03p (stating that “evidence of a disability decision by another governmental or nongovernmental agency cannot be ignored and must be considered”). The ALJ failed to provide persuasive, specific, and valid reasons for not according the Washington State decision great weight. See Berry, 622 F.3d at 1236 (holding that a decision of another agency is ordinarily entitled to great weight when that agency’s disability program bears a “marked similarity” to the Social Security disability program); Wash. Admin. Code § 182-512-0050 (2014) (previously codified as Wash. Admin. Code § 388-475-0050) (providing for use of the five-step Social Security analytic framework). The ALJ’s error was not harmless because we cannot say that it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination. See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014). We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to remand to the agency for further proceedings. See id. at 1100-02. 2 Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. REVERSED and REMANDED. 3
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.
