N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GAR Y D. SAM , 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. 14-36109 D.C . No. 4:13-c v-00013-R RB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska R a l ph R . B e istline , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 12, 2016 * * B e fore : PR EGER SON, LEAVY a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Gary D. Sam a ppe a ls pro se the distric t c o urt’ 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 Sa m ’ s a pplic at ion for supple m e nta l se c urity inc om e (SSI) unde r Title XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have 

# FIL ED SEP 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 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).jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Ghanim v . C o lv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th C ir. 2014), a n d we a ffirm . Sam re que sts a

re m a n d, sta ting in his ope

ning brie f that the C om

m i ssione r a pprove d a ne w disa bility c l a im he file d in April 2014. R e m and is not wa

rrante d be c a use Sam ’ s sta

te m e nt is unsubsta

ntia te d, a nd he fa ils to show how a subse que nt award of be ne fits is m ate ria l to theoutc om e of his c la im s de c ide d in April 2012. Se e Bruton v . Massanari , 268 F.3d 824, 827 (9th C ir. 2001) (c onc luding tha t a subse q ue nt a ward of be n e fits wa s not inc onsiste nt with a prior de nia l of the c la im ant’ s initia l a

pplic ation whe re the se c ond a pplic ation involve d diffe re nt m e dic a l e vide nc e , a

diffe re nt tim e pe riod, a

nd a diffe re nt a ge c la ssific at ion). The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Sam ha d tim e ly , a c tua l notic e of the April 30, 2012 adve rse de c i sion of the Adm inistra t ive Law Judge (ALJ). Sa m ha s not shown tha

t h e wa s de nie d notic e and a n opportunity to be he ard. Udd v . Massanari , 245 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th C ir. 2001). Sam c onte nds tha

t the m e dic a l e vide n c e re fle c ts tha t he wa s disa

ble d. The ALJ’ s non-disa

bility de te rm ination in April 2012 was supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , a

nd the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in re fusing to re m and to the a ge nc y on the ba sis of a dditiona l e v ide nc e . 4 2 U.S.C . § 405(g) ; C le m v . Sulliva n , 894 F.2d 328, 332 (9th C ir. 1990). 2The June 21, 2012 tre at m e nt note from Dav id W . Te m plin, M .D., sta

ting tha t Sam wa s “ disa

ble d,” wa s subm itte d to the Appe a ls C ounc il a nd wa s pa rt of the a dm inistra

tive re c ord. Dr. Te m

plin’ s nota

t ion tha t Sam wa s “ disa

ble d,” howe ve r, doe s not c onstitute

a m e dic a l opinion; ra

the r, it is a

n sta te m e nt on a

n issue tha

t is re se rve d to the C om

m issione r: whe the r Sam

m e e ts the sta

tutory de finition of

“ disa bility .” Se e Mc

Le od v . Astrue , 640 F.3d 881, 884 (9th C ir. 2011) (a ffirm ing the A LJ’ s re

je c tion of m e dic a l opinion tha t c la i m ant “ c ould not work a t a ll” be c a use “ this de te rm ination is for the Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion to m ake , not a phy sic ia n” ); 20 C .F.R . § 416.927(d)(1). As a re sult, it doe s not unde rm ine the substa ntia l e vide nc e in support of the ALJ’ s re sidua l func tioning c a pa c ity (RFC ) a sse ssm e nt. Additionally , Sam

fa ile d to e sta

blish a re a sona b le possibility that the ne w m e dic a l e vide nc e he pre se nte d in the distric t c ourt would ha ve c ha nge d the outc om e of the a dm inistra tive he aring, or tha

t good c a use e xiste d for his fa ilure to inc o rporate tha

t e v ide nc e into there c ord be fore the a ge n c y . May e s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th C ir. 2001); C le m , 894 F.2d a

t 332. For e xam

ple , the July 16, 2013 le tte r from

psy c hiatrist, Je an C . Purvis, M .D., post-da t e d by m o re tha n a y e ar the ALJ’ s a dve rse de c ision. Se e Mac ri v . C hate r , 93 F.3d 540, 544 (9th C ir. 1996) (c onc luding tha

t m e dic a l re ports issue d a fte r the C om m issione r’ s de c ision 3we re “ l e ss pe rsua sive ” ). M ore ove r, a lthough other m e dic a l re c ords Sa m subm itte d to the distric t

c o urt we re “ ne w” in the se nse tha t the y we re not inc lude d in the a dm inistra

tive re c ord tha

t wa s be fore the ALJ in 2012, the y are e i the r so old a s to not be m ate ria l, or the y

are duplic ative of re c ord e v ide nc e tha t wa s be fore the ALJ in M a rc h 2012. May e

s , 276 F.3d a

t 462. AFFIRM E D.

4