N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SADIE C . B URKETT,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-35180 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-05168-JPD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s P. Donohue , M a g istra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 27, 2018 ** B e fore : TR OTT, SILVER M AN, a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s. Sa die B urke tt a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s a ffirm anc e of the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for supplem e nta l se c urity inc om e unde r 

# FIL ED M AY01 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Title XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm
. I. Dr . L e w is’s O pinion The ALJ did not err in e va luating theopinion of e xam ining psy c hologist Dr. Le wis. The ALJ a ssigne d Dr. Le wis’ s opinion “ signific an t we ight” and e xpla ine d that she inc orporate d the pa

rtic ula rs of Dr. Le wis’ s opinion in B urke tt’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity (“ RFC ” ). The ALJ a lso e m pha siz e d tha t Dr. Le wis c onc lude d that B urke tt’ s m ode ra te l im ita tions in re sponding to workpla c e pre ssure s did not pre c lude he r a

bility to work. B urke tt ha s not de m onstra te d a ny c onflic t be twe e n the RFC and Dr. Le wis’ s opinion. Se e Turne r v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 613 F.3d 1217, 1222-23 (9th C ir. 2010). B urke tt’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the ALJ viola

te d the la w of the c a se doc trine by
re pe ating thee rrors for whic h the distric t c ourt re ve rse d a nd re m ande d is not val id. Sim ply put, B urke tt ha s invoke d the inc orre c t doc trine
. “ The la

w of the c a se doc trine ge ne ra lly

prohibits a c ourt from

c onside ring a

n issue tha t ha s a lre a dy

be e n de c ide d by that sa

m e c ourt or a

highe r c ourt in thesa

m e c a se .” Stac

y v . C olv in , 825 F.3d 563, 567 (9th C ir. 2016) (c ita tion omitte d). On the othe r hand, the rule of
m andate provide s a

ny “ distric t c ourt tha

t ha s re c e ive d the m andate of a n a p pe lla te
c ourt c annot va

ry or e x am ine tha

t m andate for any

purpose othe r tha

n e x e c uting

1 7
- 3 5 1 8 0 2it.” Id. at

568 (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). He re , the distric t
c ourt re m ande d

the pre vious ALJ’ s de c ision in pa rt be c a use the ALJ ha d not
re solve d the am

biguity in Dr. Le wis’ s opinion tha t B urke tt ha d

m ode ra te lim ita tions in c e rta i n func tiona l are a s, suc h a s a re a s of inte rpe rsona l inte ra c tion, but none the le ss sta

te d B urke tt’ s psy c hologic a l issue s did not pre c l ude he r from working. On re m and, the ALJ e xplic itly re solve d this a

m biguity in he r e xpla

nation of how she inc lude d Dr. Le wis’ s opinion in the R FC : by lim iting he r to sim

p le , routine ta sks a

nd c irc um s c ribing he r soc ia l inte ra c tions. The re fore , the ALJ did not viola te e ithe r the la

w of the c a se or the rule of m andate . II. Phy sic ian Assistant M ar sh’s O pinion The ALJ did not err in a sse ssing theopinion of Phy sic ia n Assista nt M arsh. B urke tt a rgue s tha t de spite the ALJ a ssignm e nt of signific ant we ight to M s. M arsh’ s opinion, the

ALJ did not inc orporat e into theR FC M s. M arsh’ s opinion that B urke tt wa s una

ble to pe rform

se de nta ry work a nd wa s lim ite d in he r a

bility to be nd. Howe ve r, M s. M arsh opine d tha t B urke tt would beuna

ble to pe rform
se de nta ry work only

if she did not re c e i ve tre atm e n t, a nd tha t with tre atm e nt, whic h she re c e ive d , she wa s c a pa ble of light work. The

ALJ a lso a c c ounte d for M s. M arsh’ s be nding lim

ita tion by lim iting B urke tt to only oc c a siona l stooping a

nd
c rouc h ing, whic h

are two ty

pe s of be nding. Se e SSR

83-10, 1983 W

L 31251, a

t *6

1 7
- 3 5 1 8 0 3(1983).

III. Nur se Pr ac titione r H a’s O pinion The ALJ prope rly

inc lude d the lim ita

tions from

Nurse Pra c titione r Ha ’ s opinion in the

R FC . B urke tt a sse rts tha

t the ALJ fa ile d to inc lude in he r RFC B urke tt’ s lim ita

t ions re ga rding he r a

bility to be nd a n d sit, a nd tha t he r m e d ic ation
a ffe c te d he r m obility . Howe ve r, M s. Ha c onc lude d tha

t B urke tt c ould pe rform
se de nta ry work de spite he r lim ite d a bility to sit, whic h is c o n siste nt with the R FC
. As disc usse d a

bove , the ALJ a c c ounte d for B urke tt’ s lim ite d a bility to be nd. La stly , re ga

rding M s. Ha ’ s c om

m e nt tha t B urke tt’ s m e dic ation a ffe c te d he r
m obility , B urke tt did not sta te it c a use d a ny func t iona l lim ita

tions be y ond those she a lre a d y liste d; a nd B urke tt ha s not shown a ny signific a nt c o nflic t be t

we e n the RFC and M s. Ha ’ s opinion. IV . Nur se Pr ac titione r Nixon’s O pinions B urke tt’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the ALJ did not provide

any le gitim ate re a son for disc ounting tre ating NursePra c titione r Nixon’ s opinion c onc e rning B urke tt’ s
m e nta l func tiona l lim ita

tions la c ks m e rit. The ALJ c ite d the fa c t tha t M s. Nixon’ s opinion wa s inc onsiste nt with he r own tre atm e nt note s indic ating: (1) tha t B urke tt’ s m e nta l he a lth sy m ptom s re sponde d we ll to m e dic ation, a nd (2) tha t M s. Nixon ha d not pe rform e d a ny c ognitivete sting, whic h a re ge rm ane re a sons for

1 7
- 3 5 1 8 0 4disc ounting M s. Nixon’ s opinion. Se e Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216

(9th C ir. 2005); Batson v . C omm’r of the

Soc . Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th C ir. 2004). The ALJ did not err by de c lining to disc uss M s. Nixon’ s M ay

2011 opinion. As the ALJ e xpla i ne d, the M ay 2011 opinion fe ll outside the disa bility pe riod a t issue : M a y 19, 2009 through April 30, 2011. An ALJ is not re quire d to disc uss e vide nc e tha

t is not signific a

nt or proba

tive
. Se e How ard e

x re l. W olff v . Barnhart , 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th C ir. 2003). Evide nc e c onc e rning B urke tt’ s sy m ptom s
and lim ita tions outside

the a lle ge d pe riod of disa bility doe s not qua lify

a s signific ant or proba

tive
. Se e C

armic k lev . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th C ir. 2008). V . O the r M e dic al O pinion E vide nc e B urke tt ha s not shown tha t the ALJ e rre d “ by

fa iling to a c knowle dge tha t [Phy sic ia n Assista nt] R e iton’ s tre atm e nt note ” tha t B urke tt’ s m e dic ation inte rfe re s with he r a bility to drive “ supports B urke tt’ s te stim ony a bout theside e ffe c ts of he r
m e dic at ions.” Howe ve r, the ALJ inc lude d B urke tt’ s ina bility to drive in he r RFC
. Thus, B urke tt ha s not shown tha t the ALJ’ s R

FC c o nflic te d with he r a lle ge d lim ita tions. B urke tt’ s c onte ntion tha

t the “ ALJ e rre d by

fa iling to a c knowle d ge tha t the

1 7
- 3 5 1 8 0 5m e dic a l e vide nc e from Dr. Littleand Dr. B ric ha rd supports B urke tt’ s te stim ony
a bout kne e pa in a

nd he r lim ite d

a bility to sta nd, wa l k, a

nd sit” a lso la c ks m e rit. B urke tt doe s not point to a ny func tiona l lim ita

tions the se doc t ors a sse sse d tha t the ALJ did not inc orporat e into he r RFC
. V I. B ur ke tt’s T e stim ony The ALJ did not err by disc o unting B urke tt’ s te s tim ony . The ALJ a pplie d the re quisitetwo-ste p fram e work a nd c ite d spe c ific , c le ar, a

nd c onvinc ing re a sons for disc ounting B urke tt’ s c la i m s. Se e Tre v i zo v . Be rry hill , 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th C ir. 2017). The A L J pointe d to e vide n c e showing tha t (1) B urke tt e xa gge ra t e d he r sym ptom s, (2) he r m e dic ations e ffe c tive l y tre ate d he r sym p tom s, (3) she re c e ive d only c onse rvative tre atm e nt, (4) he r da ily a c tivitie s indic at e d he r lim ita tions we re not a s se ve re a s she a lle ge d, (5) she did not a l way s c om ply with he r pre sc ribe d tre atm e n t, a

nd (6) the m e dic a l e vide n c e did not support B urke tt’ s a lle gations. Se e Tonape ty an v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th C i r. 2001); W arrev . C o mm’r Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th C ir. 2006); O r n v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 636 (9th C i r. 2007); Tommase t ti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041-42 (9th C ir. 2008); Bray v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th C ir. 2009). Although B urke tt c h a lle nge s the ALJ’ s re lia nc e on obje c t ive m e dic a l
e vide nc e to que stion theve rsion of he r te s tim ony , the ALJ pe rm issibly c onside re d

1 7
- 3 5 1 8 0 6that

e vide nc e in a ddition to othe r fa c tors whe n de c iding to disc ount B urke tt’ s te stim ony . Se e Bray , 554 F.3d a t 1227 (e xpla i ning a

n ALJ m ay not re je c t a
c la im ant’ s subje c tive c om p la i nts ba se d

sole ly o n a

la c k of obje c tive m e dic a l
e vide nc e ). The ALJ’ s rationa le tha

t B urke tt e xa gge ra te d he r sy m ptom s is a

m ply supporte d by e vide nc e in the re c ord. B urke tt c l a im s she re porte d two side e ffe c ts from he r m e d ic ations— diz z ine ss a nd urina ry fre que nc y

— to Dr. Anura s a

nd “ wa s not sure why

the y we re not re c o rde d in he r tre atm e nt re c ord.” Ne ve rthe le s s, the ALJ wa s not re quire d to be lie ve B urke tt’ s te stim ony on this point a

nd offe re d a
re a s ona ble inte rpre tation of thee vide nc e ba se d on the re c ord. Se e Re v e ls v
. Be rry h ill , 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th C ir. 2017). B urke tt c o nte nds tha

t the ALJ e rre d by

re l y ing on he r da ily

a c tivitie s to disc ount he r te stim ony . She c la im s tha t he r a c tivitie s are not inc o nsiste nt with he r te stim ony , a

nd tha t the y are not tra

n sfe ra ble to full-tim e work skills. This a rgum e nt la c ks m e rit. W

h i le tra nsfe ra b ility of skills to a

work se tting is one

wa y in whic h a

n ALJ m ay c onside r a

c la i m ant’ s da ily

a c tivitie s, a

n ALJ m ay

a lso disc ount c la im ant te stim ony whe re re porte d da ily a c tivitie s c ontra dic t the c la im ant’ s a lle ge d e xte nt of he r lim ita tions. Se e Orn , 495 F.3d a t 639. The ALJ c ite d

e xam ple s in the re c ord illustra ting inc o nsiste nc ie s be twe e n B urke tt’ s te s tim ony c onc e rning the lim i ting

1 7
- 3 5 1 8 0 7e ffe c ts of he r sym ptom s a nd he r a c tivitie s, suc h

a s c o m pa ring he r te s tim ony

tha t she c ould only

wa lk one bloc k to othe r e vide nc e indic ating she“ e n joy e d good
e ne rgy le ve ls a nd wa s a ble to wa lk a

lot a nd e xe rc i se .” La stly , the ALJ prope rly

re lie d upon B urke tt’ s nonc om plia nc e with he r pre s c ribe d tre atm e nt a s a

ground for disc ounting he r te stim o ny . Although Soc ia l Se c urity R uling 96-7, which wa s in e ffe c t at the tim e of the ALJ’ s de c ision, provide s a

n ALJ “ m ust not dra

w a ny infe re nc e s a

bout a n individual's sy

m p tom s
and the ir func tiona l e ffe c ts from a fa ilure to se e k or pursue re gula r m e dic a l tre atm e n t without first c o nside ring a ny e xpla nations tha

t the individual m ay provide ,” B urke tt fa ils to provide any e xpla nation for he r tre atm e nt
nonc om p lia nc e . V II. L ay W itne s s T e stim ony The ALJ did not err by disc o unting la y witne ss te stim ony

from B urke tt’ s ha lf-brothe r, Pa tric k M orrow. The ALJ liste d se ve ra l re a sons a nd ga ve spe c ific
e xam ple s for a ffording M r. M orrow’ s sta te m e nts le ss we ight, inc luding tha t (1) his te stim ony wa s inc o nsiste nt with the m e dic a l e vide nc e , (2) the sy m ptom s he a lle ge d B urke tt suffe re d from

re sponde d we l l to m e d ic ation, a nd (3) tha t B urke tt’ s da ily
a c tivitie s c o ntra d ic te d M r. M orrow’ s sta te m e nts. W

hile B urke tt a

rgue s tha t the ALJ’ s a na ly sis is not supporte d by substa n tia l e vide nc e , she a ga in fa ils to a rgue
1 7
- 3 5 1 8 0 8this issue

with suffic ie nt spe c ific ity . She doe s not e xpla i n how a nd whic h portions of the ALJ’ s a

n a ly sis of M r. M orrow’ s te stim ony the ALJ did not support with substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e C

a r mic k le , 533 F.3d a

t 1161 n.2. In addition, de spite B urke tt’ s a sse rtion tha

t M r. M orrow’ s “ obse rvat ions a re re a sona

bly c onsiste nt with the m e dic a l e vide nc e an d with B urke tt’ s te stim ony ,” the ALJ proffe re d a
re a s ona ble inte rpre tation of M orrow’ s e vide nc e . Se e Ry an v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th C ir. 2008). The ALJ did not err by de c lining to disc uss te stim ony

from B urke tt’ s da ughte r, M a

udie Olm ste a d. The ALJ a c knowle dge d M s. Olm ste a d’ s sta te m e nt, but be c a use it “ a d dre s s[e d] the c la i m ant’ s func tioning outside the pe riod a

t issue ,” she de c line d to re ly on it. An ALJ is not re quire d to disc uss e vide nc e tha t is not signific ant or proba

tive , se e How ard , 341 F.3d a t 1012, a nd e vide nc e re lat ing to B urke tt’ s sy

m ptom s a nd lim ita tions outside the a lle g e d pe riod of disa bility doe s not qua lify

a s signific ant or proba

tive . Furthe rm ore , a

ny e rror in de c lining to re ly on M s. Olm ste a d’ s te stim ony wa s ha rm le ss. M s. Olm ste a d ’ s te stim ony de sc ribe d the s am e lim ita

tions a s B urke tt’ s own te s tim ony . V III. RFC and Ste p Five Findings La stly , the ALJ did not err in form ulating the RFC or m aking there quire d Ste p Five findings. B urke tt’ s a rgum e nts turn upon he

r a sse rtions of e rror
1 7
- 3 5 1 8 0 9c onc e rning pre vious ste ps in these que ntia l e v a l uation. B e c a use B urke tt ha s not de m onstra

te d tha t the ALJ e rre d e arlie r in the ana ly sis, the s e argum e nts la c k support. Se e Stubbs-Danie lson v . Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1175-76 (9th C ir. 2008). Additiona lly , the ALJ did not err by fa iling to inc lude in the hy pothe tic a l to the
voc ationa l e xpe rt re stric tions tha t B urke tt’ s attorne y

a dde d to the hy

pothe t ic a l whe n que stioning the voc ationa l e xpe rt. Se e Magallane s v . Bow e n , 881 F.2d 747, 756-57 (9th C ir. 1989). AFFIRM E D.

1 7
- 3 5 1 8 0 10