Melissa Morales v. Nancy Berryhill , 703 F. App'x 525 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 14 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA PRISCILLA MORALES, No. 16-55393
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00899-JEM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John E. McDermott, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, GILMAN,*** and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Melissa Morales appeals the district court’s decision affirming the denial of
her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security
Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review the district court’s
order de novo, Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017), and we
affirm.
1. The ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Shinada’s residual functional
capacity evaluation (“RFC”). The ALJ gave “specific and legitimate reasons” for
discounting Dr. Shinada’s RFC: it conflicted with his own treatment notes, the
records of other examining physicians, and Morales’ testimony about her activities.
Id. at 675. In contrast with the severe disability depicted in Dr. Shinada’s RFC, his
treatment notes document reasonably stable, well-controlled lupus. Furthermore,
the limitations in Dr. Shinada’s RFC were not corroborated by Dr. Lai, Dr.
Wallace, Dr. Hwang, or Dr. Abejuela, none of whom reported significant
limitations in Morales’ hands, arms, joints, or legs, or by Morales’ testimony,
which did not mention any such limitations but recounted daily exercise, errands,
and weekly classes. The ALJ’s reasons were set out with a “detailed and thorough
summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence,” followed by the ALJ’s
interpretation of that evidence and the ALJ’s findings. Id. (quoting Magallanes v.
2
Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989)). Therefore the ALJ’s discounting of
Dr. Shinada’s RFC was not erroneous.
2. Nor did the ALJ err by finding Morales not wholly credible. The ALJ
offered four “specific, clear and convincing” reasons for his credibility
determination. Id. at 679. Morales’ claim that she was continuously too fatigued
to work was inconsistent with her symptom reports of intermittent and mild joint
pain and fatigue, her daily activities, the lack of objective clinical findings, and her
intermittent discontinuation of her medication. The constellation of all four
sources of inconsistency, presented in detail and at length by the ALJ, present
sufficiently clear and convincing reasons to find Morales not wholly credible.
AFFIRMED.
3