Jessica Bixler v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSICA BIXLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-35864
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03045-TOR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 6, 2015
Seattle, Washington
Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jessica Bixler appeals the district court’s affirmance of the denial of her
application for Social Security Supplemental Security Income. We vacate and
remand for further proceedings.
The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in evaluating the vocational
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FILED
JUL 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
expert’s testimony. The ALJ discounted Bixler’s first hypothetical even though
that hypothetical was based on evidence—Section I of a Mental Residual
Functional Capacity Assessment (“MRFCA”), from an acceptable medical
source—that the ALJ herself had previously credited. The ALJ’s stated reasons
for rejecting Bixler’s first hypothetical to the vocational expert contradict the
ALJ’s decision to credit Section I of the MRFCA.
Because the vocational expert’s testimony was critical to the ALJ’s analysis
at step five, see Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1100-02 (9th Cir. 1999), we
cannot say that the ALJ’s error in evaluating that testimony was harmless. We do
not reach the question of whether there was substantial evidence on the record as a
whole supporting the denial of benefits, because the ALJ’s errors in analysis
require further proceedings. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment and
remand to the district court with instructions to remand this case to the agency for
further proceedings.
We need not reach Bixler’s other arguments. Costs on appeal are awarded
to Bixler.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --