Krisanne Hensley v. Carolyn W. Colvin , 600 F. App'x 526 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 14 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KRISANNE L. HENSLEY,                              No. 13-35814
    Plaintiff - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00180-TOR
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
    of Social Security Administration,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 13, 2015 **
    Before:        THOMAS, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    Krisanne L. Hensley appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
    Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Hensley’s application for disability
    insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. Hensley’s unopposed motion to submit the case on the
    briefs is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de
    novo, Molina v. Astrue, 
    674 F.3d 1104
    , 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and affirm.
    The administrative law judge (ALJ) provided specific and legitimate reasons
    supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight to the opinions of
    psychologist W. Scott Mabee, Ph.D., who supervised mental health evaluations
    conducted by counseling therapist Steven E. Erikson and social worker Amy
    Robinson. First, the ALJ reasonably found that Dr. Mabee’s opinions were
    inconsistent with Erikson’s and Robinson’s clinical findings. See Bray v. Comm'r
    of Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    554 F.3d 1219
    , 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (permitting the rejection
    of a medical opinion that is inconsistent with clinical findings). Second, the ALJ
    reasonably determined that Dr. Mabee’s opinion was inconsistent with Hensley’s
    reported daily activities, which included attending to personal care, cooking,
    cleaning, shopping for groceries, taking the bus and swimming for exercise. See
    Curry v. Sullivan, 
    925 F.2d 1127
    , 1130 (9th Cir. 1990) (concluding that claimant’s
    testimony about her daily activities may be seen as inconsistent with the presence
    of a disabling condition). Third, the ALJ reasonably gave more weight to the
    contradictory opinions of Drs. Bailey and Gentile, whose conclusions were
    consistent with other independent evidence in the record. See Tonapetyan v.
    Halter, 
    242 F.3d 1144
    , 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that contrary opinion of a
    2
    non-examining medical expert may constitute substantial evidence when it is
    consistent with other independent evidence in the record).
    The ALJ provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting
    Hensley’s testimony regarding the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her
    symptoms. The ALJ noted that Hensley’s subjective complaints of disabling knee
    pain and mental health impairments were not fully supported by the medical
    evidence. See Chaudhry v. Astrue, 
    688 F.3d 661
    , 670-671 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding
    that the ALJ properly relied on medical evidence undermining claimant’s
    subjective assessment of limitations). The ALJ further noted that Hensley stopped
    working, in part, because of her positive drug test rather than an injury. See Bruton
    v. Massanari, 
    268 F.3d 824
    , 828 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that in making a
    credibility determination, ALJ did not err by considering that claimant left his job
    because he was laid off, rather than because he was injured). Finally, the ALJ was
    permitted to consider Hensley’s reports of her daily living activities and her lack of
    mental health treatment when considering the intensity, persistence and limiting
    effects of her symptoms. See Curry, 925 F.2d at 1130; Molina, 
    674 F.3d at 1113
    (in assessing credibility, the ALJ may properly rely on unexplained or inadequately
    explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment).
    AFFIRMED.
    3