Rochelle Stanley v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROCHELLE STANLEY, No. 21-35236
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05532-MAT
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner MEMORANDUM*
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Mary Alice Theiler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 14, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge.
Rochelle Stanley appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for social security
*
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 Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
income and disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We review the district court’s decision de novo. Terry v. Saul, 998 F.3d
1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th
Cir. 2008). We review the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision for
substantial evidence. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing
Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006)). We
affirm.
First, the ALJ did not err in her treatment of Stanley’s testimony. At prong
two of the credibility analysis, the ALJ’s negative credibility determination was
supported by “specific, clear, and convincing reasons” because Stanley’s
statements about the severity of her symptoms were inconsistent with the medical
and functional evidence in the record. See Ahern v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th
Cir. 2021).
Second, the ALJ did not err in weighing the physicians’ medical opinions.
An ALJ only needs to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by
substantial evidence to reject a medical opinion that is inconsistent with other
record evidence. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020). The ALJ
found Drs. Neims and Zolnikov’s opinions unpersuasive because they were not
supported by record evidence and were based on Stanley’s self-reported symptoms.
See Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041. The ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Clifford’s opinion
2
faithfully represented the overall opinion and was consistent with other record
evidence.
Third, Patty Olive’s lay witness testimony was inconsistent with evidence
elsewhere in the record and thus the ALJ’s treatment of it was not reversible error.
See Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009).
Fourth, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding at Step Four that
Stanley’s past relevant work as a “cleaner/housecleaner” constituted substantial
gainful activity that does not exceed Stanley’s residual functional capacity. We
need not reach Stanley’s argument that the ALJ erred at Step Five. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4) (“If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we
make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step.”).
Finally, considering the entire record, we find that Stanley’s post-hearing
evidence does not undermine the ALJ's determination. See id. § 404.970(a)(5);
Brewes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
3