Argued
and Submitted February 15, 2018 Pasadena, California
Appeal
from the United States District Court For the Central
District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge,
Presiding D.C. No. 2:15-cv-03356-JLS-JEM
Erika
Bailey Drake (argued) and Roger D. Drake, Drake & Drake
P.C., Calabasas, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Tina
L. Naicker (argued), Special Assistant United States
Attorney; Deborah L. Stachel, Acting Regional Chief Counsel,
Region IX; Sandra R. Brown, Acting United States Attorney;
Social Security Administration, San Francisco, California;
for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Marsha S. Berzon and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges,
and Sharon L. Gleason, [*] District Judge.
SUMMARY
[**]
Social
Security
The
panel reversed the district court's judgment that
affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of a
claimant's application for disability insurance benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act and supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Act.
As an
initial matter, the panel held that the Appeals Council's
reasoning for denying review is not considered on subsequent
judicial review, and turned to the reasoning provided by the
ALJ in her decision.
The
panel held that the ALJ erred in not adequately addressing
claimant's 100% Veterans Affairs ("VA")
disability rating in her decision. The panel held that
although the ALJ noted claimant's VA disability rating at
the hearing and in her written decision, she did not address
how she had considered and weighed the VA's rating or
articulate any reasons for rejecting it. The panel held that
remand for further proceedings was appropriate where it was
unclear from the record whether the ALJ would be required to
find claimant disabled after evaluating the VA disability
rating.
OPINION
GLEASON, DISTRICT JUDGE
Carol
Ann Luther appeals the district court's judgment
affirming the administrative law judge
("ALJ")'s denial of her application for
disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title
II of the Social Security Act ("Act") and
supplemental security income ("SSI") under Title
XVI of the Act. We hold that the ALJ erred in not adequately
addressing Luther's 100% Veterans Affairs
("VA") disability rating in her decision. We
reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
BACKGROUND
On
February 27, 2013, Luther filed an application for DIB and
SSI. She sought these benefits due to her post-traumatic
stress disorder ("PTSD") and degenerative disc
disease. At that time, she claimed a disability onset date of
December 28, 2012. In December 2013, the VA concluded that
Luther was 100 percent disabled for PTSD, 30 percent disabled
for urinary tract infection, and 10 percent disabled for
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, for an overall
rating of 100% disabled, ...