N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HELLE GAR C IA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF SOC IAL SEC UR ITY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-16911 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-03164-KJN
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia K e nda l l J. Ne wm an, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 8, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and WATFORD, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd DUFFY, Se nior Distric t Judge
. *** 

# FIL ED OCT 10 2014 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Ke vin Thom a s Duffy , Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by

de s igna tion.Pa ge 2 of 5

1. M ic he lle Ga

rc i a ’ s obje c tions to the ALJ’ s tre atm e nt of c onflic ting
m e dic a l te stim ony

do not provide

a ba sis for re ve rsa l. The ALJ re j e c te d the opinion of Ga

rc i a ’ s tre at ing psy c hologist, Dr. Willia m Ta e tz sc h—

the only m e dic a l
e xpe rt to c onc lude Ga

rc ia wa s e ntire ly

unfit for work— a s a

n outlie r “ so e x tre m e a s to a p pe ar im p la usible .” Ordina

rily , a tre ating phy sic ia

n ’ s opinion outwe ighs a non-tre ating phy sic i an’ s opinion. Se e Leste r v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th C ir. 1996). B ut in this c a s e , the ALJ re je c te d Dr. Ta e tz sc h’ s opinion in fa vor of the
e xam ining phy sic ia

ns’ opinions for “ spe c i fic and le gitim ate ” re a s ons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Id . at 830. TheALJ fa irly de c ide d tha t Dr. Ta e tz s c h’ s c onc lusory

de te rm inations tha

t Ga rc ia ha d, for insta

nc e , poor or no a

b ility to de a l with work stre sse s a

nd to pe rform

work a c tivitie s, a

re unsupporte d

by Dr. Ta e tz sc h’ s own note s, whic h a lm ost e xc lusive ly

c onc e rn Ga

rc ia ’ s re lationship with he r son a nd he r phy sic a l he a lth a

nd providea lm ost no a

na ly sis. TheALJ
re a s ona bly gave c ontrolling we ight to the thre e othe r inde pe n de nt m e dic a l opinions, be c a

use the y we re c onsona

nt with Ga

rc ia ’ s broa de r m e dic a l history
. Nothing in tha

t history sugge sts Ga

rc ia c annot sit, sta

nd, or lift light we ights throughout a

workda y . Inde e d, the ALJ note d tha t he r “ lim ping ga it” on the wa

y into thee xam

room , whic h

would ha ve c orroborate d he r c la im s, disa p pe are d in the pa rking lot when

she no longe r thought she wa s be ing obse rve d.Pa ge 3 of 5

2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the ALJ’ s de c i sion to give littlewe ight to Ga rc ia ’ s te stim ony

in a sse ssing he r re s idua l func t iona l c a pa c ity to pe rform

light work. The ALJ prope rly

re lie d on “ ordina

ry te c hnique s of c re dibility e va l uation,” inc l uding inc onsiste nc ie s a c ross sta te m e n ts, inc onsiste n c i e s be t we e n sta te m e nts and c onduc t, ina de quate ly e xpla ine d fa i lure to follow pre sc ribe d c ourse s of tre atm e n t, a

nd da ily a c tivitie s at odds with alle ge d sy m ptom s. Se e Molina v
. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1112–13 (9th C ir. 2012). TheALJ found Ga rc ia ’ s te stim ony tha t she is de pe nde nt on these rvic e s of othe rs a nd una ble to do a

nything but sle e p a

nd wa tc h te l e vision to be

inc onsiste nt with m any

of he r e arlie r sta te m e nts sugge sting tha

t she wa s re lat ive l y inde pe n d e nt. The ALJ furthe r note d that Ga rc ia unde rwe nt a

batte ry of dia gnostic te sts for he r a l le ge dly de bilita t ing
m usc uloske le ta l pa in tha

t y i e lde d fe w obje c tive findings, a nd tha t she prove d
c onsiste n tly

unc oope ra tive with m e dic a l profe ssiona ls a nd unwilling to c om

ply with pre sc ribe d

tre atm e nts, e ve n whe n the y we re e ffe c tive . Quoting Dr. Ta e tz sc h’ s opinion, Ga

rc ia sugge sts tha

t he r la c k of e ffort during e x am inations is a produc t of he r de pre ssion a

nd c hronic pa in, but, a s we have a lre a dy note d, the ALJ found tha t Dr. Ta e tz sc h’ s opinion re lie d on fe w or no obje c tive c linic a l findings. The ALJ’ s re a sons for disc re diting Ga rc ia ’ s subje c tive pa in a

nd sy m ptom te stim ony are c le ar an d

c onvinc ing. Se e Linge nfe lte r v . Astrue , 5 04 F.3d 1028,Pa ge 4 of 5

1036–37 (9th C ir. 2007). A s a re s ult, we m ay not se c ond-gue ss the ALJ’ s c re d ibility

de te rm inat ions. F

air v . Bow e n , 885 F.2d 597, 604 (9th C ir. 1989). 3. Garc ia c l a im s it wa s re ve rsible e rror for the ALJ not to ide ntify he r de pre s sion a s “ se ve re ” at ste p two in the se q ue ntia l e va luation of disa

bility
. This
c la im am ounts to a

re sta t e m e n t of Ga rc ia ’ s a rgum e n t re ga

rding the ALJ’ s tre atm e nt of c onflic ting m e nta l he a lth te stim ony . Ga rc ia c o nte nds tha

t the ALJ’ s a lle ge d
e rror a t ste p two “ c ould c ha nge the outc om e of the c a se ” be c a use Dr. Ta e tz sc h’ s opinion sta

te d tha t he r de pre ssion a

nd pa in m a de he r e m o tiona lly fra gile and unpre d ic ta

ble and se ve re ly

im pa ire d he r a

bility to a djust to the

workpla c e . W e have note d tha

t the ALJ re a sona

bly disc ounte d

Dr. Ta e tz s c h’ s opinion. B ut e ve n if the A LJ did e rr in fa iling to identify Ga rc ia ’ s de pre s sion a s “ se ve re ” at ste p two, that e rror wa s ha

rm l e ss. Se e Le w is v . Astrue , 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th C ir. 2007). Garc ia pre va ile d at ste p two, a

nd the ALJ proc e e de d through the e ntire se que ntia l
ana ly sis, c are fully

c onside ring a ll of Ga

rc ia ’ s m e nta l he a lth re c ords in a sse ssing he r re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c i ty . 4. Garc ia a l s o c la im s tha

t the ALJ e rre d in his re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity
a sse ssm e nt by

fa iling to c onside r a ll of he r func tiona l lim i tations a nd the e ffe c t of
c e rta in limi tations on the

oc c upationa l ba se for light work. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the

ALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity a sse ssm e n t. The ALJ we i ghe dPa ge 5 of 5

Garc ia ’ s e ntire m e dic a l history and the c re dible opinions of e xam ining a n d tre ating phy sic ia ns to find Ga

rc ia c a p a ble of a wide range of light work. The ALJ
c onc lude d tha

t he r m e nta l a

n d phy sic a l lim ita

t ions, inc luding he r lim ite d c a pa c ity to work with othe

rs a nd to work a

m id fum e s and dust, did not signific antly e rode the b a se of unskille d

light work with lim

i te d or no publicc onta c t for whic h Ga rc ia
wa s othe rwise qua lifie d. Suc h light work gene ra lly re q uire s inte ra c tion with obje c ts rathe r tha

n pe ople , a

nd m ost work e nvironm e nts la c k the fum e s a n d dust that would e xa c e rbate Ga

rc ia ’ s pulm ona

ry de fic ie nc ie s. Se e SSR

85-15, 1985 W

L 56857, a t *4, *8. 5. The ALJ prope rly

de c line d to c a ll a

voc ationa l e xpe rt, a s Ga

rc ia ’ s none xe rtiona l lim ita

tions we re insuffic ie ntly

se ve re to re nde r the grids ina pplic a ble
. Se e Hoopai v . Astrue , 499 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th C ir. 2007). In Hoopai , the ALJ de te rm i ne d, without c onsulting a voc ationa l e xpe rt, tha

t a se ve re c om

bina tion of low ba c k pa i n a

nd m ode ra te de pre ssion did not re nde r Hoopa i ine ligibleto pe rform
a wide range of light work. Id . at 1076–77. The ALJ re a c he d the sa

m e c onc lusion
a bout Ga rc ia in this c a se . The re fore , e ve n if this c a se we re distinguisha ble from Hoopai , a s Ga

rc ia urge s, be c a

use the ALJ did not e xplic itly ide ntify de pre ssion a

t ste p two, Hoopai would not c om m and a diffe re nt re sult. AFFIRM E D.