N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KR ISTINA M ILLER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, C om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 17-16126 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01419-DJH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na D ia ne J. Hum e te wa , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 5, 2019 **
B e fore : FAR

R IS, TR OTT, a

n d SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s Kristina M ille r a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt orde r a ffirm ing the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion’ s de nia l of disa

bility be n e fits. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w the distric t c ourt orde r de novo a nd the a ge nc y

de c ision 

# F IL ED J UN 07 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).for substa

ntia l e v ide nc e and le ga l e rror. Garrison v . C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th C ir. 2014). W e a ffirm
. The ALJ ga

ve c le a r and c onvinc ing re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e for finding tha

t M ille r’ s te stim ony

wa s not e ntire ly

c re dible
. Id. at 1014- 15 (se tting forth the

c le ar and c onvinc ing sta

nda rd). M ille r’ s te stim o ny

a b out he r sym ptom s a nd da i ly a c tivitie s wa s inc onsiste nt with m e dic a l te s ting, tre atm e nt note s, a nd othe r state m e nts she m a de in the re c ord. The ALJ c ould re j e c t the te stim ony for the se re a sons. Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1112-13 (9th C ir. 2012). The ALJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility findings we re suffic ie ntly spe c ific to sa

tisfy Brow n -Hunte r v . C

olv i n , 806 F.3d 487 (9th C ir. 2015). TheALJ ide ntifie d the
re le va nt te s tim ony , ga

ve spe c i fic re a sons for re

je c t ing the te stim ony , a

n d c ite d to the re le va nt re c ord. Id. at 493-94. 1 The ALJ a lso ga

ve a ge rm an e re a son for giving le ss we ight to the opinion of M ille r’ s husba

n d. The sta

te m e nt wa s inc onsiste nt with the m e dic a l re c ord. Gre

ge r

1 W e re je c t the ALJ’ s obse rvation tha t be c a use m arijua

na is ille ga l unde r fe de ra l la w, M i lle r’ s use of it “ d oe s not e nha n c e he r c re dibility” notwithsta n ding that he r use wa s le ga l unde r state la w. The disc re pa

n c y be twe e n the fe de ra l a

nd sta te m arijua na la ws doe s not be ar on he r c re dibility one wa y or the othe r. Howe ve r, this e rror wa s ha rm le ss in light of the

tota lity of the ALJ’ s orde r. C armic k lev . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th C ir. 2008). 2v . Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th C ir. 2006); Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d

1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005). The ALJ ga

ve spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e for finding tha

t Dr. Young’ s m e nta l a sse s sm e nt wa s m ore c onsiste nt with the re c ord a s a whole tha

n Dr. M itc he ll’ s opinion. Garrison , 759 F.3d a t 1012 (se tting forth the

sta nda rd). Dr. M itc h e ll’ s opinion wa s inc onsiste nt with tre atm e nt note s a nd M ille r’ s da ily

living a c tivitie s a

nd he avily

re lie d on M ille r’ s subje c tive
c om pla i nts, whic h the ALJ found not c re dible . The ALJ c ould givele ss we ight to the o pinion for the se re a sons. Buc k v . Be rry hill , 869 F.3d 1040, 1050 (9th C ir. 2017); G hanim v . C

olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1161-62 (9th C ir. 2014). Dr. Young’ s
a sse ssm e nt, whic h wa s supporte d by inde pe nde nt e xam inat ion note s a nd obje c tive te st re sults a

n d c onsiste nt with other e vide nc e in the re c ord, provide d substa ntia l
e vide nc e to support the

ALJ’ s m e nta l a sse ssm e nt. Tonape t y an v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th C ir. 2001). The ALJ a lso ga

ve spe c ific and le g itim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e for giving little we ight to the opinions of Dr. Silve

rm a n , Dr. Johnson, a

nd Dr. M osc hona s. The opinions were inc onsiste nt with tre atm e nt note s a nd obje c t ive te sting a nd le ss c onsiste nt

with there c ord a s a

whole tha

n the opinions of Dr. Wright a nd Dr. B argan. The opinions of Dr. Silve rm an a n d Dr. Johnson also
3he avily re lie d on M i l le r’ s subje c tive c o m pla ints, whic h the ALJ found not c re dible
. The ALJ c ould givele ss we ight to the opinions for the se re a sons. G hanim , 763 F.3d at 1162; Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008). AFFIRM E D.

4