MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RALPH ZAREFSKY, Magistrate Judge.

The Supreme Court long ago ruled that a reviewing court can evaluate an agency's decision only on the grounds articulated by the agency. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1577, 91 L. Ed. 1995 (1947). The Ninth Circuit has emphasized this rule in many Social Security cases. See Ceguerra v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 933 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Chenery); Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2001); Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 873 (9th Cir. 2003). It is this rule that trips up the Commissioner in the present case.

The Administrative Law Judge here gave "partial weight" to the opinions of Dr. George-Barbar, an examining psychologist, without explaining what "partial weight" meant. [AR 46] Evidently, she did not agree with Dr. George-Barbar's assessment that Plaintiff could not work due to mental impairments, that he also had difficulty performing activities within a schedule, maintaining regular attendance and punctuality, completing a normal workday, responding appropriately to criticism, and a host of other difficulties. [AR 310]

When an administrative law judge rejects the opinion of an examining physician, the judge must give specific and legitimate reasons that are backed by substantial evidence. Widmark v. Astrue, 454 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2006). In this Court, the Commissioner posits a variety of reasons as to why the Administrative Law Judge was justified in rejecting the opinion. None of the reasons, however, was articulated by the Administrative Law Judge in her decision, and it is that decision, not the subsequent articulation in this lawsuit, which this Court is obligated to consider.

Since the Administrative Law Judge did not articulate her reasons for rejecting Dr. George-Barbar's opinion (or giving it "partial weight"), the matter must be remanded for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.