Dorthey Virginia Geter v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORTHEY VIRGINIA GETER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-35706
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00932-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 21, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Dorthey Geter appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security
Administration’s denial of her applications for disability benefits. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for substantial evidence,
FILED
DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2012), and we reverse and
remand for further proceedings.
The ALJ’s reasons for finding that the lay testimony of Rhonda Geter,
Geter’s sister had only “limited value” are not supported by substantial evidence.
The sister’s statements indicated that she had personally observed Geter’s behavior
during visits and phone calls. The sister’s statements regarding Geter’s mental
impairments were consistent with the mental health records as a whole, including
Dr. Vanderpool’s observation of hypomania and tentative diagnosis of either
bipolar type II or cyclothymia. Furthermore, the sister’s statements to the effect
that Geter is severely mentally ill are corroborated by Geter’s undisputed episodes
of homelessness and living on the streets. This error is not harmless, because the
sister’s statements evinced a more limited ability to function mentally than that
adopted by the ALJ in the RFC and posed to the vocational expert. Although we
find no merit in the other claims, we remand for reconsideration in light of the
sister’s evidence.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --