N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANTHONY H. B A LL, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35760 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00014-JO
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon R obe rt E. Jone s, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 4, 2015 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd D.W . NELSON a

nd LEAVY, C irc uit Judge s. Anthony B a ll a ppe a ls pro sethe 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 B a ll’ s a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits under Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. B a ll a lle ge d

disa bility 

# F IL ED JUN 08 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).due to de ge ne rat ive joint a nd disc dise a se , post tra

um atic stre ss disorde r, ga stroe sopha ge a l re flux dise a se , he m orrhoids, fla t fe e t, c hronic funga l skin infe c tion, a nd
c hronic irrita

t ion of fa c ia l ha ir follic le s. B a l l c onte nds tha t the a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) e rre d in giving ve ry littlewe ight to the

m e dic a l opinion of psy c hiatrist Thoma s B a

rre tt, M .D., a

nd e rre d by

not providing ge

rm ane re a sons for giving very

littleor no we ight to the

opinions of his c

hiropra c tor, Dr. Le e C owa n. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo. Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). W e m ay se t a side the de nia l of be ne fits only if it is not supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e or is ba se d on le ga l e rror. Id. The ALJ provide d spe c ific an d le gitim ate re a sons for giving ve ry little
we ight to Dr. B arre tt’ s opinion. Vale n tine v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 692 (9th C ir. 2009). First, the ALJ re a sona

b ly c onc lude d tha

t Dr. B arre tt’ s opinion wa s of m i nim a l re le va nc e whe re his M a

y 2008 opinion wa s re nde re d m ore tha

n two y e ars a fte r B a ll’ s De c e m be r 2005 da

te la s t insure d , a

nd the re is no e vide nc e tha

t Dr. B arre tt tre ate d B a ll prior to his da te la st insure d. Batson v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th C i r. 2004). Se c ond, theALJ re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t Dr. B arre tt’ s opinion wa s not
c onsiste nt with other m e d ic a l e vide nc e . Id. 2The ALJ provide d ge rm ane re a sons for giving ve ry littleor no we ight to the opinions of c hiropra c tor Dr. C o wan. Se e 20 C .F.R . § 404.1513(a ), (d)(1) (a
c hiropra c tor is c onside re d a n “ o the r” m e d ic a l sourc e ); Molina , 674 F.3d a t 1111 (holding tha

t a n ALJ m ay

disc ount te stim ony from

“ othe r sourc e s” if the ALJ provide s ge rm ane re a sons for doing so). The ALJ prope rly

note d tha t Dr. C owe n’ s April 2001 le tte r indic ate d B a ll’ s limita tions did not ne c e ssa

rily indic ate that B a ll
wa s disa b le d. Se eFair v . Bow e n , 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th C ir. 1989) (m e dic a l
c onditions may

produc e pa in not se ve re e nough to pre c l ude ga i nful e m ploy m e nt). In a ddition, the

ALJ prope rly

note d tha t Dr. C o wan’ s a sse ssm e nts we re inc o nsiste nt with c onte m

pora ne ous m e dic a l e vide n c e . B ay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005). Finally , the ALJ prope rly gave no we i ght to Dr. C owe n ’ s opinions be c a

use the y we re inc onsiste nt. Morgan v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 169 F.3d 595, 603 (9th C ir. 1999). Ac c ordingly , the ALJ provide d ge rm ane re a sons for disc ounting Dr. C owa n’ s opinions. Molina , 674 F.3d a t 1111. B a ll’ s re m a ining c la im s of e rror have be e n wa ive d be c a

u se he fa ile d

to ra ise the m be fore the distric t c ourt. B a ll, who wa s re pre s e nte d by c ounse l be fore the ALJ a nd the distric t

c ourt, fa ile d to e sta

blish a ny e x c e p tion to the

ge n e ra l rule tha

t this c ourt will not c onside r an issuera ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Gre

gor v . Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th C ir. 2006). 3Ac c ordingly , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha

t B a ll
wa s not disa

ble d within the

m e aning of theSoc i a l Se c urity Ac t. AFFIRM E D.

4