Edward Schiffer v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD SCHIFFER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-35917
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05900-RBL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, D. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Edward Schiffer appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for child’s insurance
benefits, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits
* 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).
FILED
MAR 12 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-35917
under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. At step five of the sequential
evaluation process, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Schiffer
could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue,
674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we vacate and remand.
The ALJ erred by failing to provide any reasons for not accepting some of
the statements by lay witness Loraine Schiffer after assigning great weight to
Loraine’s statements. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114 (explaining that the ALJ must
give reasons that are germane to each witness to discount competent lay witness
testimony). Specifically, the ALJ failed to provide any reasons for not
incorporating into Schiffer’s residual functional capacity several limitations that
were identified in Loraine’s third party reports that addressed Schiffer’s ability to
maintain competitive employment. See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880,
883 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that the ALJ must determine a claimant’s limitations
on the basis of “all relevant evidence in the record.”). Accordingly, we vacate the
district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings with an open record.
Schiffer’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 26) is granted.
Appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file a late response to
Schiffer’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 29) is granted. The

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-35917
Clerk shall file Appellee’s response to the motion to take judicial notice submitted
on December 27, 2016.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --