Carey Cyree v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2023 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 7 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAREY CYREE, No. 22-35462
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-05069-TOR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 5, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Carey Cyree appeals the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision that
there was no medical evidence of a physical or mental impairment from the period
of January 1, 2010 through the date last insured of December 31, 2013. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We must decide whether the ALJ’s decision
to deny disability benefits at step two, based on the finding that Cyree was not
disabled during the relevant period, is supported by substantial evidence.
Cyree bears the burden of proof at step two to establish entitlement to
disability insurance benefits. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d
685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009). The Social Security Administration’s regulations specify
that a physical or mental impairment “must be established by objective medical
evidence from an acceptable medical source” and cannot be established by “your
statement of symptoms, a diagnosis, or a medical opinion[.]” 20 C.F.R. §
404.1521. The record here contains no medical evidence to substantiate the
existence of an impairment. See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir.
2005) (holding that Ukolov failed to meet his burden to establish disability at step
two as “none of the medical opinions included a finding of impairment, a
diagnosis, or objective test results”).
Cyree further contends that the ALJ failed to determine an established onset
date pursuant to SSR 18-1p. However, SSR 18-1p does not apply because an
established onset date must be determined only if the ALJ finds that the claimant
met the statutory definition of disability. See SSR 18-01p (S.S.A.), 2018 WL
4945639, at *2 (Oct. 2, 2018).
Page 2 of 3
Therefore, the ALJ’s decision that Cyree did not establish disability during
the relevant period is supported by the record. In the absence of any medical
evidence of disability, Cyree’s contentions that the ALJ should have conducted
further analysis are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
Page 3 of 3