N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OB ER T E. R

U NIONS, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-36045 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-06020-M AT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M ary Alic e The ile r, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 28, 2020 * * Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : GR

AB E R , C LIFTON, a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff R obe rt E. R

unions a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s fina l de c i sion de ny i ng R unions’ a pplic ation for be ne fits unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. R e vie w ing the distric t c ourt’ s



# FIL ED NOV 3 2020 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).orde r de nov o , we m ust indepe nde ntly

de t e rm ine whe the r the Adm inistra t ive La w Judge ’ s (“ ALJ” ) de c ision is fre e of le ga l e rror an d supporte d by substa n tia l
e vide nc e . Se eBe rry

v . Astrue , 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th C ir. 2010). 1. The ALJ did not fail to de ve lop the re c ord fully and fa irly

be c a use “ [a ] n ALJ’ s duty

to de ve lop the re c ord furthe r is trigge re d only whe n the re is a m biguous
e vide nc e or whe n

the re c ord is ina de quat e to a llow for prope r e va luation of the
e vide nc e .” May e

s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th C ir. 2001). R unions’
c ounse l re pre se nte d tha

t the re wa s no ne e d to ke e p the re c ord ope n a nd tha t the
re c o rd wa s c om

p l e te . R unions, a s the disa

bility c la im ant, ha d the duty

to prove his disa bility an d to produc e e vide nc e to support his c la im
. Se e 20 C .F.R
. § 404.1512(a). R

unions doe s not c la im

tha t he m a de any

atte m pt to subm

it his Vide o-EEG re sults to the ALJ be fore the ALJ issue d a writte n de c ision, or la

te r, to the Appe a ls C ounc il or the d i stric t c ourt. Se e Bre w e s v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 682 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th C ir. 2012); 20 C .F.R § 404.970(b); se e also 42 U.S.C . § 405(g). M ore ove r, R unions’ argum e nt re ga

rding theVide o-EEG re sults is
e ntire l y spe c ulat ive . R

unions doe s not c onte n d tha t the Vide o-EEG re sults support his disa bility c la im
.

22. R

unions wa ive d a

ny c h a lle nge to the ALJ’ s findings a t ste p two by

fa iling to ra ise tha

t c ha lle nge to the distric t c ourt. Se e Ghanim v
. C olv i n , 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th C ir. 2014). 3. The ALJ did not err in disc ounting R unions’ subje c tive sy

m ptom te stim ony be c a use the ALJ m a de “ s pe c ific findings sta ting c le ar and c onvinc ing
re a s ons for doing so.” B atson v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th C ir. 2004) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ). The ALJ found tha t R unions’ te stim ony wa s inc o nsiste nt with the “ unre m arka

ble ” re sults of diagnostic
e xam inations a

nd prope rly

c onside re d e vide n c e tha

t R unions’ sym

ptom s we re am e liora te d with useof m e d i c ation. Se e W e llington v
. Be rry hill , 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ [E] v ide nc e of m e dic a l tre atm e nt suc c e ssfully re lie v ing sy

m ptom s c an unde rm ine a

c la im of disa bility .” ); se e also 20 C .F.R
. §§ 404.1520a (c )(1), 416.920a (c )(1). In a ddition, the ALJ prope rly c onside re d R unions’ re c e ipt of
une m ploy m e n t be ne fits be c a

use R unions he ld him s e lf out for full-time work in orde r to obta in thosebe ne fits. Se e C armic k le v . C o mm’r, Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1161–62 (9th C i r. 2008) (holding tha t “ re c e i pt of une m

ploy m e nt be ne fits c an unde rm ine a

c la im ant’ s a lle ge d ina

bility to work full[-] tim e ” if the
re c o rd e sta

blishe s tha

t the c la im ant “ he ld him se l f out a s a va ila ble for full-tim e . . . work” ); se e also W a sh. R e v. C ode § 50.20.010 (providing tha t an a pplic ant for
3une m

ploy m e n t be ne fits in W a shington sta te m ust c e rtify tha t he or she is re a dy , a ble , a nd willing to work). R

unions’ a pplic ation for a

nd re c e ipt of une m

p loy m e nt be ne fits in thefourth qua

rte r of 2015 a

nd the first qua

rte r of 2016 dire c tly
c ontra dic ts his a l le gation of disa bility onse t o n Nove m

be r 19, 2015. TheALJ a lso pe rm issibly

found tha

t R unions might be une m

ploy e d for re a sons othe r tha n his disa bility be c a u s e R unions said tha

t the c o m m ute to a n othe r job wa s not “ worth it.” R unions did not sa

y tha t he wa s una

b le to m ake the c om

m ute due to his se iz ure disorde r. The ALJ’ s c onc l usion wa s rationa l a nd m ust be uphe ld. Se e Burc h v
. Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ Wh e re e vide nc e is susc e ptible to
m ore tha n one ra tiona l inte rpre tation, it is the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t m u st be uphe ld.” ). 1 4. The ALJ did not err by disc re diting Mrs. R

unions’ la y te stim ony . Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [I] f the ALJ give s ge rm ane re a sons for re

je c ting te stim o ny

by one witne s s, the ALJ ne e d only point to those re a s ons whe n re

je c ting simila

r te stim ony

by a diffe re nt witne ss.” ), supe rse de d by

re gulation on othe

r grounds
.

1 The ALJ e rre d in c iting R unions’ a c tivitie s a s a

re a son for disc ounting R unions’ sy

m ptom te stim ony . Se e Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th C i r. 2007). Ne ve rthe l e ss, this e rror wa s ha rm l e ss be c a

use the ALJ c i te d othe r va lid re a s ons for disc o unting R unions’ te stim ony . Se e Burc h , 400 F.3d a t 679. 45. The ALJ did not err in we ighing a nd e va luating them e dic a l e xpe rt opinions. The

ALJ wa s wa

rrante d in giving little

we ight to Mr. M c M e an s’ opinion be c a use it re s te d e ntire ly

on R unions’ se l f-re porting, theALJ ha d a lre a dy found R unions’ subje c tive sy

m ptom te stim ony

to be inc onsiste nt with the re c ord
e vide nc e , a

nd a p hy sic ia

n a ssista nt is not a n “ a c c e pta

ble m e dic a l sourc e ” for
a pplic ations file d be fore M arc h 27, 2017. Se e Ghanim , 763 F.3d a t 1162; Molina , 674 F.3d a

t 1111; se e also 20 C .F.R
. §§ 404.1502(a )(8), 404.1527(c )(3). The ALJ pe rm issibly

gav e “ signific ant we ight” to the opinions of the non-e x am ining phy sic ia ns a nd psy c hologists, Dr. Ha

le , Dr. R ubio, Dr. Dona

hue , a nd Dr. Eise nha u e r, due to the ir tra ining, e xpe rtise , a nd knowle dge of the Soc ia l Se c urity disa bility progra m ’ s rule s a

nd sta nda rds. R unions doe s not ide ntify

how the opinion of Dr. Pic ke tt, who e xam ine d R unions, is inc onsiste nt with thenone xam ining psy c h ologists’ findings of m ild m e nta l lim ita

tions. 6. The ALJ prope rly

inc orporate d

into theR

FC only those lim ita

tions supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e an d prope rly re lie d on a voc ationa l e xpe rt instruc te d by

a hy pothe tic a l tha

t wa s supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Ghanim , 763 F.3d a

t 1166. AFFIRM E D.

5