Hinda Abdi v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 8 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    HINDA ABDI,                                     No.    20-35950
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01990-MLP
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
    of Social Security,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 4, 2023**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
    Hinda Abdi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the
    Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her 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 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).
    Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and 
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g). We review de novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 
    827 F.3d 872
    , 875 (9th Cir.
    2016), and we affirm.
    We “can reverse only if the [Administrative Law Judge’s] findings are based
    on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
    Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but may be less than a
    preponderance.” 
    Id.
     (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Further, “[i]f
    the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,” one of which
    supports the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), “we are required to
    affirm.” 
    Id.
     (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the ALJ applied
    the correct legal standards and supported her decision with substantial evidence.
    The ALJ committed no reversible error in crediting the opinions of treating
    physician Gregory Gutke and examining physicians David Whitney and Roman
    Kutsy, where the ALJ found these opinions consistent with Abdi’s work history,
    her receipt of unemployment benefits, and the longitudinal medical record. See 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1527
    (c)(2)-(6) (in weighing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider
    factors including supportability and consistency with the record). Abdi’s
    contention that Drs. Gutke, Whitney, and Kutsy were biased against her is
    unsupported by the record. Further, the ALJ did not err in assigning no weight to a
    statement from treating physician Kim Holland, where Dr. Holland did not provide
    2                                   20-35950
    any assessment of Abdi’s functional capacity. See Ford v. Saul, 
    950 F.3d 1141
    ,
    1156 (9th Cir. 2020) (no error in ALJ’s rejection of a medical opinion for failure to
    specify functional limits).
    Abdi’s contention that she did not receive a proper medical evaluation
    likewise is unsupported. To the extent that Abdi contends the ALJ failed to
    develop the record, the contention fails because there is no indication that the
    record before the ALJ was ambiguous or insufficient. See Tonapetyan v. Halter,
    
    242 F.3d 1144
    , 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (an ALJ’s duty to develop the record is
    triggered when the record is ambiguous or insufficient for the ALJ to render a
    decision).
    With her opening brief, Abdi submitted a notice of an award of benefits
    from a later, second application and the recent medical evaluation that supported it.
    To the extent that Abdi requests remand based on the subsequent award of
    benefits, we deny the request. This later award concerns a later time period, an
    older age classification, and different medical evidence; accordingly, Abdi has not
    shown that it is material to this appeal. See 
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g) (this court may
    remand for consideration of additional evidence upon a showing that the evidence
    is material and good cause exists for the late submission); Bruton v. Massanari,
    
    268 F.3d 824
    , 827 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Nov. 9, 2001) (concluding that a
    3                                    20-35950
    subsequent award of benefits was not material where it “involved different medical
    evidence, a different time period, and a different age classification”).
    We do not consider Abdi’s assertion that she was not properly represented,
    because she did not raise this issue before the district court, see Greger v.
    Barnhart, 
    464 F.3d 968
    , 973 (9th Cir. 2006), and she develops no claim of error
    here, see Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 
    350 F.3d 925
    , 929 (9th Cir. 2003)
    (“[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s
    opening brief.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    AFFIRMED.
    4                                    20-35950
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-35950

Filed Date: 8/8/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/8/2023