Jimmie Leon Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIMMIE LEON MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-17674
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01017-CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, FISHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The administrative law judge (ALJ) erred when formulating Martin’s
residual functional capacity (RFC) because the RFC neither incorporated Dr.
FILED
MAR 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Steiner’s opinion of Martin’s work limitations nor gave specific and legitimate
reasons for rejecting it. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1996).
The limitations assessed by Dr. Steiner were potentially inconsistent with the
ALJ’s determination that Martin could engage in “light work.” See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1567(b); see also SSR 83-10. As a result, the VE’s testimony based on the
flawed RFC had no evidentiary value. See Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418,
422–23 (9th Cir. 1988). In evaluating Martin’s RFC on remand, the ALJ should
address Dr. Steiner’s opinion.
The ALJ did not err in discrediting Martin’s testimony as to the severity of
Martin’s pain. The ALJ provided “specific, clear and convincing” reasons and
cited multiple portions of the record that were inconsistent with assertions of total
disability. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). These
reasons were also germane to discredit the testimony of Martin’s wife, see
Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009), but
because the ALJ did not specifically comment on this testimony, the ALJ should
do so on remand.
The district court shall remand this case to the Commissioner for
proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition. The parties shall bear
their own costs on appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --