T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LE I LANI E D. THUN E, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C om m i s s i one rof S o ci al S ecu ri ty, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 35866 D. C. No . 4 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 0 6 7 - SE H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na S a m E . H a ddon, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r7, 2012 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , M cK E O W N , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L e i l a ni e D . T hune appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on gr a nt i ng s u m m a ryju d g m e n t in f

a v o ro f th e C o m m is s io n e ro f

S o c ia l S e c u r ity 

# FI LED NO V 29 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

(“ C om m i ss i on er ”) and aff i rm i ng the C om m i ss i on er ’ s f i nal deci si on , w hi ch c o n c lu d e d th a t T h u n e w a s n o t e n title dto D is ab ilityI n s u r a n c e B e n e f its u n d e rT itle II of the S oci al S ec uri ty A ct , 42 U . S . C . §§ 40 1-43 4. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de ruphol di ng the C om m i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on. B at s on v . C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 359 F . 3d 1190, 1 1 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a f f irm th e d e c is io n o f

th e C o m m is s io n e rif

it is supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence, and the C om m i ss i on erappl i ed the corre ctl egal s ta n d a r d s . I

d. T he “ C om m i s s i one r ’ s f i ndi ngs a r e uphe l d i f

s upport e d by i nfer ence s r ea sonabl y draw n from the re cord. ” I d. If evi dence exi st s t o sup po rt m o re th an o n e r atio n al in terp re tati o n , w e m u st d ef erto th e C o m m issio n er ’s d e c is io n . Mor

gan v . C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 16 9 F . 3d 59 5, 59 9 (9th C i r. 1999) . W e a f

f i rm i n pa rt , r e ve r s e i n pa rt , a nd r e m a nd. I S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw Judg e’ s ( “ A L J” ) de t e rm i na t i on tha tT hune ’ s de pr e s s i on w a s nots e ve r e be c aus e i tc aus e d he rno m o r e th a n am in im a l lim ita tio n in h e rab ilityto f u n c tio n . See Sm olen v. Cha ter , 80 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( “A n im p a irm e n t o rc o m b in a tio n o f im p a irm e n ts can b e f ou nd ‘ no tse vere ’ on l y i f the evi dence es t abl i shes a s l i gh tabno rm al i ty that ha s ‘ no m or e tha n am i ni m a l e f f e c ton a n i ndi vi dua l [ ’ ] s abi l i tyt o w ork. ’ ” ) ( quot i ng3

S S R 85- 28, 1985 W L 56856 ( 1985) ) . T hune tw i c e t e s t i f i e d tha ts he w a s not d e p r e s s e d , a n d e x a m in in g p s y c h o lo g is t M a rkJ o h n s o n d idn o t d ia g n o s e T h u n e w ith d e p r e s s io n . A lth o u g h h e rtr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n , D r . J a m e s H in d e , s ta te din h is tr e a tm e n t n o te s th a t h e b e lie v e d T h u n e w a s d e p r e s s e da n dp r e s c r ib e dh e ra n tid e p r e s s a n ts , h e d idn o t id e n tif ya n yf u n c tio n a l lim ita tio n s r e s u ltin g f r o m h is d i ag n o si s. II S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rts th e A L J ’s d e c is io n to a c c o r dle s s e rw e ig h t to D r . H in d e ’s M a y1 , 2 0 0 8 , m e d ic a l o p in io n . “W h e r e th e tr e a tin g d o c to r ’s o p in io n is notc ontr a di c t e d bya nothe rdoc t or , i tm a ybe r e j e c t e d onl yf

or‘ c l e a ra nd conv i nci ng ’ re as on s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence i n the re cord. ” O rn v. A s tr ue , 495 F . 3d 625, 632 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . D r . H i nde ’ s M a y1, 2008, m e di c a l opi ni on w a s c ontr a di c t e d byhi s pr i oropi ni ons a nd bythe o b s e rv a tio n s h e r e c o r d e d in h is tr e a tm e n t n o te s th a t s a m e d a y . See B ayl iss v. B a rn h a rt , 42 7 F . 3d 12 11 , 12 16 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatthe di sc re pancy b e tw e e n atr e a tin g d o c to r ’s a s s e s s m e n t th a t th e c la im a n t c o u ldn o t s ta n do rw a lk a nd hi s r e c or de d obs e rva t i ons w a s a“ c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng r e a s on f ornotr e l y i ng on the doc t or ’ s opi ni on” ) . N ori s D r . H i nde ’ s M a y1, 2008, opi ni on s upport e d by the tr e a tm e ntnot e s of

othe rtr e a t i ng a nd e xa m i ni ng phy s i c i a ns i n the r e c or d.4 II I S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the A L J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on b ec au se h e g av e “‘sp ec ific, clearan dco n v in cin g re as o n s’” f o r r ejec ti n g T h u n e’s te s tim o n yr e g a r d in g th e s e v e r ityo f h e rs y m p to m s . Chaudhr yv . A s tr ue , 688 F . 3d 661, 671 ( 9th C i r . 2012) ( quot i ng V as quezv . A s tr ue , 57 2 F . 3d 58 6, 59 1 (9th C i r. 20 09 )) . T he A L J properl y di sc re di t ed T hu ne’ s a l l egat i on s of pai n b ec ause they contra di ct ed her t es t i m on y r egar di ng her dai l y a ct i vi t i es , w hi ch i ncl ud ed g a r d e n in g , c le a n in g , c o o k in g w ith c a s t- ir o n c o o k w a r e , a n dru n n in g e rr a n d s . See Mor gan , 169 F . 3d a t600 ( a f f i rm i ng the A L J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on w h e r e th e c la im a n t’s c la im o f d is ab ilityw a s c o n tr a d ic te db yh is “ab ilityto f ix m e a ls , d o lau n d ry , w o rkin th e y a r d , a n do c c a s io n a llyc a r e f o rh is f r ie n d ’s c h ild ” ) . T h e A L J’s a d v er se cr ed ib il ity d eter m in atio n is also su p p o rted b y T h u n e’s fa l se ho od concerni ng the l oss of herm edi ci ne and a di sc re pancy i n the re cord r e g a r d in g w h ys h e le f

t h e rla s t p o s itio n o f

e m p lo y m e n t. See Ch a u dh ry , 68 8 F . 3d at 6 7 2 ( h o ld in g th a t a n A L Jm a yc o n s id e r“o r d in a ryte c h n iq u e s o f c r e d ib ility e va l ua t i on, s uc h a s . . . t e s t i m onybythe c l a i m a nttha tappe a r s l e s s tha n c a ndi d” ( quot i ng T

om m as e t t iv . A s tr ue , 5 3 3 F .3 d1 0 3 5 , 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ) . IV5

H ow ever , subst ant i al evi dence does notsupp ortthe A L J’ s r es i du al f u n c tio n a l c ap a c itya s s e s s m e n t b e c au s e h e e rr e din d e te rm in in g th a t T h u n e c o u ld pe r f orm a n e i ght - hourw ork da yw i th norm a l br e a ks . I n m a ki ng thi s de t e rm i na t i on, th e A L Jf

a ile d to in c lu d e lim ita tio n s b a s e do n c e rta in o f D r . H in d e ’s o p in io n s o rto gi ve “ ‘ s pe c i f

i c a nd l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons ’ s upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i n the r e c o r d ” f o rr e je c tin g th o s e o p in io n s . O rn , 495 F . 3d a t632 ( quot i ng L es terv. Cha ter , 81 F . 3d 821, 830 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ) . I n hi s D e c e m be r28, 2004, tr e a tm e nt n o te s , D r . H in d e o p in e d th a t T h u n e c o u ldw o rko n lys ix a n dah a lf h o u r s p e rd a y . I n hi s M a y6, 2004, a nd F e brua ry5, 2004, tr e a tm e ntnot e s , D r . H i nde r e c om m e nde d, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tT hune t a ke abr e a k e ve ryha l f hourf orf i ve t o t en m i nu t es and a 15 -m i nu t e bre ak everytw o h ou rs . T hese op i ni on s w er e contra di ct ed by the op i ni on of the S t at e D i sabi l i ty D et erm i nat i on S ervi ce s e va l ua t or , D r . D a vi d J or da n, w ho opi ne d tha tT hune c oul d pe r f orm a n e i ght - hour w o rkd a y“( w ith n o rm a l b r e a k s ) .” E v e n th o u g h th e A L Ja c c o r d e d“g r e a t w e ig h t” t o D r . J or da n’ s opi ni on, he f a i l e d t o a ddr e s s D r . H i nde ’ s D e c e m be r , M a y , a nd F e brua ry2004 opi ni ons , l e ta l one pr ovi de s pe c i f i c and l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r df o rr e j e c t i n g th e m . B e c au s e we

“ m ayno taf

fi rm the A L J on a grou nd up on w hi ch he di d n otre l y, ” id. a t6 3 0 , we r e m a n d f o rth e A L Jto a d d r e s s D r . H in d e ’s o p in io n s a n de ith e rto a c c e p t th e m o rto6

pr ovi de s pe c i f

i c a nd l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons s upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i n the r e c o r d f o rr e je c tin g th e m . E a c h p a rtys h a ll b e a rits o w n c o s ts f o rth is ap p e a l. AF F I RME D i n p a r t ; RE V E RS E D i n p a r t ; RE MAND E D.