Rosa Quinones v. Nancy Berryhill , 690 F. App'x 966 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 11 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA H. QUINONES, No. 15-56319
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:14-cv-01425-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jacqueline Chooljian, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE, CHRISTEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Quinones appeals from the judgment of the district court upholding the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that she was not disabled, and
thus not entitled to disability insurance benefits, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 416, 423.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s order affirming an administrative law
judge’s (ALJ) denial of Social Security benefits. Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153,
1158 (9th Cir. 2012). The issue before us is whether the Commissioner’s final
decision determining that Quinones is not disabled is supported by substantial
evidence and free of reversible error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
In determining that Quinones was not disabled, the ALJ properly employed
the five-step sequential evaluation procedure and found that Quinones’s
impairments were not presumptively disabling under any of the listed impairments
outlined at 20 C.F.R. § Pt. 404, Subpt. P. App. 1. Subsequently, the ALJ found that
Quinones retained the residual functioning capacity for sedentary work with certain
restrictions, and that her subjective allegations were not fully credible.
The Commissioner’s final determination was appealed to the district court
and, by stipulation, the case was referred to a magistrate judge. We conclude, based
upon the opinion of the magistrate judge, that the Commissioner’s final decision
denying benefits should be upheld as it is supported by substantial evidence and
free of reversible legal error. We agree with the magistrate judge that no weight
2 15-56319
should be given to Dr. Kornu’s opinions because they are unsupported by the
factual record, and were improperly based on Quinones’s non-credible statements.
Any error committed by the ALJ by not specifically addressing Dr. Kornu’s
opinions that Quinones was limited by debilitating flare-ups and loss of grip
strength was harmless. Quinones failed to meet her burden of proof. The only
evidence in the record that Quinones’s flare-ups, loss of grip strength, and fatigue
were frequent and debilitating was her testimony and self-reports to doctors, and
she does not contest the ALJ’s conclusion that she was “not entirely credible.” See
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (“An ALJ may reject a
treating physician’s opinion if it is based ‘to a large extent’ on a claimant’s
self-reports that have been properly discounted as incredible.”).
Therefore, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-56319