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. 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 L I S A M. HE AL Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I CHAEL J . ASTR UE, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 56561 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 2 5 9 3 - CJ C- CT 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 o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C orm a c J . C a rne y , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry3, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L is aH e a lyap p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h e rc la im f

o rS o c ia l S e c u r ityD is ab ility Insurance and S up pl em ent al S ec uri ty I ncom e benefi t s. T he part i es ar e f am i l i ar w ith th e f

a c ts o f th is c a s e , w h ic h w e r e p e a t h e r e o n lyto th e e x te n t n e c e s s a ryto e x p la in o u rd e c is io n . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n da f f irm . 

# FI LED MA Y18 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

W e r e vi e w the C om m i s s i one rof S oc i a l S e c ur i ty ’ s de ni a l of be ne f i t s de n o v o . G i l let t-N

et t i n gv. B a rn h a rt , 3 7 1 F . 3 d5 9 3 , 5 9 5 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). W e m u st a f f i rm the C om m i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on i f i ti s s upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a nd ap p lie s th e c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d s . B a ts o n v . C o m m ’ ro f So c . Se c . A dm in . , 359 F . 3d 11 90 , 11 93 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). S ub st ant i al evi dence i s “ m ore than a m er e s c in tillab u t le s s th a n ap r e p o n d e r a n c e ; it is s u c h r e le v a n t e v id e n c e a s ar e a s o n ab le m i nd m i gh tac ce ptas adequat e t o sup po rta c on cl usi on . ” Sa nd ga the v. Cha ter , 108 F . 3d 97 8, 98 0 (9th C i r. 19 97 ) ( per c uri am ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks). T o est abl i sh di sabi l i ty due t o a di sorderof the spi ne, L i st i ng 1. 04 re qu i re s ne rve r ootc om pr om i s e , a s w e l l a s l i m i t a t i on of s pi ne m ot i on a nd, i n the c a s e of l ow e rba c k i m pa i rm e nt s s uc h a s H e a l y ’ s , apos i t i ve s tr a i ght - l e g r a i s i ng t e s t . 20 C . F . R . P t . 404, s ubpt . P , app. 1A 1. 04. H e r e , D r . B oe c k e xpl i c i t l yf ound no ne rve rootcom prom i se atany l evel , and stra i gh t -l eg ra i si ng t es t s w er e negat i ve. D r. F la n n e ryf

o u n d th a t H e a lyh a d an o rm a l r a n g e o f m o tio n . D r. Z aki al so foun d that H e a lye x h ib ite d af

u ll r a n g e o f

m o tio n in th e c e rv ic a l s p in e . S ub st ant i al evi dence s u p p o rts th e a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e ’s ( “A L J ” ) f in d in g th a t H e a ly ’s im p a irm e n ts do notm e e torm e di c a l l ye qua l the s pi ne - r e l a t e d i m pa i rm e nt s de s c r i be d i n L i s t i ng 1 .0 4 .3

C hr oni c f

a t i gue m a ybe adi s abl i ng i m pa i rm e nt“ w he n i ti s a c c om pa ni e d by m e di c a l s i gns orl abor a t oryf i ndi ngs . ” S S R 99- 2p. A di a gnos i s of c hr oni c f

a t i gue r e q u ir e s : cl i ni ca l l y e val uat ed, pers i st entor re l apsi ng chroni c f at i gu e thati s of new or d efi ni t e ons e t( i . e . , ha s notbe e n l i f e l ong) , c a nnotbe e xpl a i ne d by a nothe rphy s i c a l orm e nt a l di s or de r , i s notthe r e s ul tof ongoi ng e xe rt i on, i s not s ubs t a nt i a l l y a l l e vi a t e d by r e s t , a nd r e s ul t s i n s ubs t a nt i a l r e duc t i on i n p re vi ou s l evel s of occ up at i on al , educat i o n al, soci al , or pers on al a c tiv itie s . Id . H e r e , H e a ly ’s im p a irm e n ts d o n o t m e e t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f S o c ia l S e c u r ity R ul i ng 99 -2p. H ea l y r eport ed thatshe had “ al w ay s” fe l tfa t i gu ed, and D r. T em p est i rep o rt ed th atH eal y h ad a “ l o n g st an d i n g h i st o ry” o f fat i g u e. T h u s, H e a l y ’ s f a t i gue di d notm e e tthe “ ne w orde f i ni t e ons e t ” c ondi t i on ne c e s s a ryt o a chroni c f at i gu e di agno si s. D r. R i tvo foun d thatH ea l y had no i m pai rm enti n h er m e m o ryo rc o n c e n tr a tio n . [ S E R 251- 2] F u rth e rm o r e , D r s . T e m p e s ti a n dG u n n e ll foun d sever al po ss i bl e a l t ernat i ve source s of H ea l y’ s f at i gu e, i ncl ud i ng anem i a, v ita m in d e f

ic ie n c y , a n d e x c e s s iv e to b a c c o u s e . [ S E R 342, 364] T ho ug h D r. A l pern e xpr e s s e d di s a gr e e m e ntw i th S S R 99- 2p, both he a nd the A L Jc orr e c t l yappl i e d the ru lin g to d e te rm in e th a t H e a lyw a s n o t d is ab le dd u e to c h r o n ic f a tig u e s y n d r o m e . S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rte d th a t d e te rm in a tio n . Se e A n dr e w s v . Sh a la la , 53 F . 3d 10 35 , 10 41 (9th C i r. 19 95 ) ( ho l di ng thateport s of non -e xam i ni ng expert4

“m a ys e rv e a s s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e w h e n th e ya r e s u p p o rte db yo th e re v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d ” ) . L a s t l y , H e a l ya r gue s tha tthe A L Je rr e d byf a i l i ng t o c ons i de rthe opi ni on of tr e a t i ng phy s i c i an D r . J oe yB r e tt . D r . B r e tt ’ s opi ni on w a s pr e s e nt e d onl yt o the Ap p e a l s C o u n c i l , a n d wa s n e v e rs u b m i tt e dt o th e AL Jf o rc o n s i d e r a t i o n . On appeal , ho w ever , w e m ayconsi der both the A L J’ s dec i si on and add i t i on al m at er i al s u b m itte d to th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il. R a m ir ezv . Sh a la la , 8 F .3 d1 4 4 9 , 1 4 5 1 - 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) .

“ W he n c onf

r ont e d w i th c onf

l i c t i ng m e di c a l opi ni ons , a n A L Jne e d not ac ce pta tre at i ng ph ys i ci an’ s opi ni on thati s c on cl usory and bri ef and u nsup po rt ed by cl i ni ca l fi nd i ng s. ” T on ap et yan v. H al ter , 24 2 F . 3d 11 44 , 11 49 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). D r. B re tttre at ed H ea l y f or on l y abo uton e m on th. H i s r eportconsi st s of a“ chec k the box” s ty l e que s t i onna i r e a nd i nc l ude s no obj e c t i ve c l i ni c a l f i ndi ngs . A s the A pp ea l s C ou nci l st at ed, D r. B re tt ’ s opi ni on do es no tm er i tgrea tw ei gh tor af fe ct th e d e te rm in a tio n th a t H e a lyis n o t d is ab le d . AF F I RME D. E a c h s id e to b e a rits o w n c o s ts .