
    Deborah J. CANTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-35374.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 2013.
    Filed Oct. 23, 2013.
    Tim Wilborn, Wilborn Law Office, PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Adrian Lee Brown, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, David Burdett, SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for D efendant-App ellee.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Deborah Cantrell appeals the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee the Commissioner of Social Security on her claims for benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Among other things, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that Cantrell did not establish degenerative disc disease as a severe impairment because of a lack of supporting objective medical evidence, and also discounted Cantrell’s self-reporting and her treating medical providers’ assessments for the same reason. The Appeals Council denied Cantrell’s request for review, but incorporated a 2008 x-ray into the record that had not been presented to the ALJ. That x-ray showed “marked multilevel degenerative changes” of the cervical spine.

Under Brewes v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir.2012), such “evidence becomes part of the administrative record, which [we] must consider when reviewing the Commissioner’s final decision for substantial evidence.” Because the 2008 x-ray may have implications for the agency’s reasons for denying benefits, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the agency to reconsider its decision in light of the 2008 x-ray and any other additional evidence that may exist. See id. at 1164 (indicating that we have discretion to remand “for additional evidence and findings”).

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . As the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we repeat only those facts necessary to explain our decision.
     