N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALAN E. W OOD,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-36064 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-05077-B HS
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 B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 14, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : B YB EE, M . SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Ala n W ood a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of his a pplic ation for Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc om e disa

bility be ne fits. The a dm inistra tive la w judge (ALJ) found tha

t 

# F IL ED
J UN 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W ood wa s not disa b le d be c a use he did not ha

ve an im p a i rm e nt or c om

bina t ion of im pa irm e nts tha

t m e t or m e dic a lly

e q ua le d the se ve rity

of one of the liste d im pa irm e nts a

t 20 C .F.R ., Part 404, Subpa rt P, Appe ndix 1, a

nd he ha d the re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity to pe rform jobs tha

t e xist in signific ant num

be rs in the nationa l
e c onom y . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd, re vie w ing de novo the d istric t c o urt’ s a ffirm anc e of the C om m issione r’ s fina l de c ision, wea ffirm
. Se e Stout v . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th C ir. 2006). 1. The introduc tory

pa ra gra ph to Listing 12.05 re quire s a c la im a nt to show de fic its in a da

ptive func tioning be fore the a ge of 22. 20 C .F.R
. § 404, subpt. P, a pp. 1, § 12.05 (2012) (introduc tory pa ra gra p h). 1 This re quire m e nt is in a ddition to thosere lat ing to inte lle c tua l func tioning a nd c onta i ne d in subse c tions A–D. Id. § 12.00 (sta

ting tha t in orde r for a

c la im ant to m e e t Listing 12.05, he or she m ust

“ satisf[y ] the dia gnostic de s c ription in the introduc tory

pa ra g ra ph a nd a ny one of the four se ts of c rite ria ” ); se e Hall v . Florida , 134 S. C t. 1986, 1994 (2014) (“ [T] he
m e dic a l c om

m unity de fine s inte lle c tua l disa

bility a c c ording to thre e c rite ria :

1 A re vise d Listing of Im pa irm e nts we nt into e ffe c t on Ja nua ry 17, 2017. Re v ise d Me dic al C rite ria for Ev

a luating Mental Disorders , 81 Fe d. R e g. 66138-01 (Se p. 26, 2016). B ut the re gula tions in plac e in Nove m

be r 2013, whe n the A LJ’ s de c ision be c am e fina l, gove rn this a ppe a l. S e e id. at 66138 n.1. (“W e e xpe c t tha

t Fe de ra l c o urts will re vie w our fina l de c isions using the rule s tha t we re in e ffe c t at the tim e we issue d the de c isions.” ). 2signific antly suba ve ra ge inte lle c tua l func tioning, de fic its in a da ptive func tioning (the ina bility to le arn ba sic skills a

nd a djust be havior to c ha

nging c irc um s ta

nc e s),
and onse t of the se de fic its during the de ve lopm e nta l pe riod.” ). Although W ood ha d a qua lify i ng IQ sc ore , the ALJ did not err by c onc luding tha

t W ood did not
m e e t a liste d im p a irm e nt be c a

use he fa i le d to sa

tisfy the introduc tory

pa ra g ra ph with e vide nc e of de fic its in a d a ptive func t ioning be fore the a ge of 22. 2. The ALJ ga

ve disc ounte d we ight to Dr. Da na Ha rm on’ s opinion be c a use Dr. Ha

rm on re vie we d W ood’ s re c ords for ge ne ra l a ssista nc e e ligibility
and wa s not re quire d to a

pply the sa m e rule s a

nd sta nda rds a s the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion. TheALJ c h o se to givem ore we ight to the opinions of five
e xam ining phy sic ia

ns. A LJs a

re not bound by

the de c i sions of other gove rnm e nt
a ge nc ie s, se e 20 C .F.R
. § 416.904, a nd it is not e

rror for a n ALJ to a fford le ss
we ight to the

opinion of a

re vie wing phy sic ia

n tha n to theopinions of e xam ining phy sic ia ns, se e Holohan v . Massanari , 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th C i r. 2001). The ALJ thus did not e

rr by disc ounting Dr. Ha

rm on’ s opinion. 3. The ALJ found tha t W ood’ s sta

te m e nts a bout theinte nsity , pe rsiste nc e , a

nd limiting e ffe c ts of his a l le ge d sy m p tom s we re “ not fully

c re dible .” If a c la im ant provide s obje c t ive e v ide n c e of a n unde rly ing im

pa i rm e nt tha

t c ould
re a s ona bly produc e his sy

m ptom s, “ and the re is no e vide nc e of m a linge ring,” an

3ALJ c an disc ount thec la im a nt’ s te stim ony

“ only by offe ring spe c ific , c le ar and
c onvinc i ng re a sons for doing so.” Linge nfe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th C ir. 2007) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). He re , the ALJ pointe d to num e rous inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n W ood’ s te stim ony a bout his sy

m ptom s a nd the re c o rd. The ALJ a lso a

rtic ulate d c onc e rns tha

t the re c ord showe d tha

t W ood m a

y have fa bric ate d som e inform ation. The se re a sons, supporte d by the re c ord, we re suffic i e nt to find W ood not fully c re dible
. AFFIRM E D.

4