N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOHN M . VAN OR SDOL,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 14-35220 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00601-R SL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt S. La snik, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 5, 2016 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : M c K EOW

N, TALLM AN, a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. John Va n Orsdol 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 a tion for disa

bility insura

nc e be ne fits a nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e . The a dm inistra

tive la w judge (ALJ) found tha t Va n Orsdol wa s not disa

ble d be c a use he ha d the re sidua l func tiona l



# FIL ED
DEC 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.c a

pa c ity (RFC ) to pe rform

work tha t e xists in signific an t num be rs in the na tiona l
e c onom y . S e e 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1512(f), 404.1520(g), 404.1560(c ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The ALJ ga

ve “ spe c i fic , c le ar a n d c o nvinc ing re a sons” justify i ng his de c ision to disc ount Va

n Orsdol’ s te stim ony

and re a sona

bly c onc l ude d tha

t Va n Orsdol’ s te stim ony a

bout the se ve rity

of his sy m p tom s c onflic te d with the re c ord. Se e Vasque

z v . Astrue , 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th C ir. 2009) (inte rna l quota tions
om i tte d). 2. The ALJ did not e rr whe n inc orpora ting the m e dic a l opinion e v ide nc e into Van Orsdol’ s R

FC . First, the ALJ ga

ve “ spe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons tha t a re supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord” for disc ounting c e rta in m e dic a l opinions. Se e Leste r v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th C i r. 1996). The ALJ disc ounte d the opinions of Dr. Floyd a nd phy sic ia

n’ s a ssista

nt Ke n ne th W isc om

b be c a use the y we re c ontra dic te d by

late r m e d ic a l opinions or we re une xpla ine d a

nd unsupporte d by

e vide nc e . Se e Ose nbroc k v . Apfe l , 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th C ir. 2001) (c onc luding the“ m ost re c e nt m e d ic a l re ports a re highly probative ” whe re a
c ondition ha s c ha

n ge d ); J ohnson v . Shalala , 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th C ir. 1995) (stating tha

t ALJs m ay

re je c t a m e dic a l opinion for be ing “ c onc lusory and unsubsta ntia t e d by re le v ant m e d ic a l doc u m e ntation” ).
2Se c ond, the ALJ did not re je c t Dr. Kie fe r’ s m e dic a l opinion, but inste a d gave it “ signific ant we ight” an d inc orpora t e d re stric tions from the opinion into the hy pothe t ic a ls pre se nte d to the voc a tiona l e x pe rt during his te stim ony . The
voc a tiona l e xpe rt wa s a

ble to ide ntify

four jobs c la ssifie d in the Dic tiona ry of Oc c upationa l Title s a s “ light work” that som e one with suc h re s tric tions c ould pe rform
. Se e J

ohnson , 60 F.3d a

t 1435 (“ [T] he e xpe rt te stim ony m ay prope rly be
use d to show tha

t the pa rtic u l ar jobs, whe the r c la ssifie d a s light or se de nta ry , m ay be one s tha

t a pa rtic ula r c l a im ant c an pe rform .” ). None of the a uthoritie s c ite d by Van Orsdol m andate a

finding tha

t som e one with his lim

ita tions c o uld only pe rform se de nta

ry work. Se e 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1567, 416.967; SSR 83–10, 1983 W L 31251, a

t * 5 –6 (1983). The ALJ’ s e va luation of Va n Orsdol’ s R

FC wa s not
e rrone ous. 3. The ALJ ga

ve “ ge rm ane re a sons” for disc ounting the te stim ony of la y witne s s Sta

nle y Hofm ann by finding tha

t his te stim ony

wa s inc onsiste nt with the
re c o rd. Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th C ir. 2012). The ALJ ga

ve a ppropria te re a sons for disc ounting c e rta in opinions a nd did not othe rwise e rr in e va luating Va n Orsdol’ s R

FC . B e c a use substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the

ALJ’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t Va n Orsdol is not disa

ble d, we a ffirm
. AFFIRM E D.
3