Alicia Klick v. Andrew Saul ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALICIA KLICK, No. 18-16537
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02018-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, CLIFTON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Alicia Klick appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 405(g). We review de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.
2012). We affirm the district court’s judgment.
Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”)
finding that the opinion of Dr. Geary, an examining doctor, was entitled to minimal
weight and the opinions of Drs. Zeuss and DeFelice, state agency reviewing
doctors, were entitled to great weight. See id. The ALJ provided specific and
legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for his
assessment by explaining that Dr. Geary’s opinion was inconsistent with the results
of testing that he performed, and the reviewing doctors’ opinions were consistent
with other objective medical evidence, including psychoneurological test results
and CT scans of claimant’s head. See Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1156 (9th Cir.
2020) (specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of an examining
doctor may include inconsistency with objective evidence in the medical record).
Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s finding that Klick’s symptom
testimony was “not entirely credible.” See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035,
1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for analyzing testimony). The ALJ performed the
required two-step analysis and provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for
his finding by citing the medical record, Klick’s lack of follow-through in
treatment, and her sporadic work record. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113-14 (ALJ
may consider claimant’s failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course
2
of treatment); Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ
properly discounted claimant’s testimony where claimant left work because he was
laid off, rather than because he was injured); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853,
857 (9th Cir. 2001) (objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in assessing
testimony).
AFFIRMED.
3