NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICK HORSFALL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35433 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05604-JPD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James P. Donohue, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 30, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Patrick Horsfall appeals the district court’s decision affirming the 

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance 

benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Reviewing de novo, we may set 

 

* 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).

FILED

DEC 13 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-35433 

aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, or if 

the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) applied the wrong legal standard. Molina v. 

Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the 

medical opinions of Dr. Dan Neims and Dr. Mark Heilbrunn. Concerning 

evaluations of Horsfall’s mental impairments, the ALJ reasonably assigned greater 

weight to Dr. Kristine Harrison’s opinion – that Horsfall was not disabled from 

mental health symptoms – than to Dr. Neims’s opinion, which concluded that 

Horsfall was disabled by pain and anxiety disorders and depressive symptoms. In 

discounting Dr. Neims’s opinion, the ALJ provided a specific and legitimate 

reason when the ALJ properly noted that Dr. Neims’s diagnosis of a major 

depressive disorder was contradicted by his own observations and other evidence 

in the record. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th

Cir. 2008) (holding that an inconsistency between a doctor’s opinion and the 

doctor’s clinical findings is a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting the 

opinion).

Concerning evaluations of Horsfall’s physical limitations, the ALJ provided 

a number of specific and legitimate reasons for giving only some weight to Dr. 

Heilbrunn’s opinion, which concluded that Horsfall had postural and motion 

limitations. First, the ALJ properly noted that contemporaneous medical evidence 
3 16-35433 

did not support the limitations opined by Dr. Heilbrunn, where the ALJ noted that 

x-rays taken at the same time as the physical examination showed nothing 

abnormal about Horsfall’s lumbar spine. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 

1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting a 

physician’s opinion includes inconsistency with medical records). Second, the 

ALJ reasonably inferred that Dr. Heilbrunn relied on Horsfall’s subjective reports 

of symptoms and limitations, which were not entirely credible. Tonapetyan v. 

Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). Third, the ALJ reasonably concluded 

that Dr. Heilbrunn’s opinion conflicted with Horsfall’s activities, which included 

working as a groundskeeper, driving a car, and daily activities of bathing and 

dressing himself. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Finally, the ALJ properly concluded that Dr. Packer’s opinion – that Horsfall’s 

back problems were not disabling – was generally consistent with the medical 

evidence, and deserving of greater weight than Dr. Heilbrunn’s opinion. 

Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040-41.

The ALJ provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for finding that 

Horsfall’s statement concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of 

his symptoms were not entirely credible. First, the ALJ reasonably found that 

Horsfall’s daily activities were inconsistent with the limitations he described. 

Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 672 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that when 
4 16-35433 

weighing credibility, an ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities). Second, 

the ALJ properly found that Horsfalls’s allegations of limitations were not 

supported by the medical evidence. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 

2005). Finally, we do not consider Horsfall’s contention that the ALJ erred in 

using his alleged inconsistent statements in its credibility analysis where Horsfall 

did not raise any inconsistencies before the district court. Gregor v. Barnhart, 464 

F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).

The ALJ properly considered the lay witness testimony. First, the ALJ 

provided a germane reason for rejecting the testimony and report of Horsfall’s wife 

when he reasonably concluded that the testimony and report of Horsfall’s wife was 

inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 

1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005). Second, contrary to Horsfall’s contention, the ALJ did 

not discount the function report submitted by Horsfalls’s mother. Third, 

concerning the function report of Horsfall’s pastor, the ALJ did not accurately 

summarize the report when he omitted the pastor’s observations that for a number 

of years Horsfall had a “painful battle with back and spinal degeneration,” 

resulting in Horsfall having trouble rising, and having difficulty walking forward. 

Nevertheless, the ALJ properly discounted the pastor’s observations as inconsistent 

with other evidence. Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692 

(9th Cir. 2009). 
5 16-35433 

We reject Horsfall’s contention that the ALJ erred in assessing his residual 

functional capacity. Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217 (holding that the ALJ need only 

include limitations for which there was record support when reaching a residual 

functional capacity assessment).

AFFIRMED.