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

TER ESA M AR IE B E R KEB ILE,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,

v. NANC Y A. B ER R

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-15846 D.C . No. 1:14-c v-01530-B AM

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia B a rba ra M c A uliffe , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding **
Subm itte d Oc t obe r 18, 2017 *** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : HAW KINS, W

. FLETC HER , a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED

OCT 20 2017
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a nd is not p re c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The pa rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra t e judge

.

* ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s t

his c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a rgum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pla intiff Te re sa B e rke bile ( “ Ber ke bile ” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r upholding t

he Soc ia l Se c urity C om

m i ss io n er ’s d e c ision de ny i ng he r a pplic a tion for disa bility be ne fits. W e a ffirm

. B e rke bile a rgue s t

ha t the Adm inistra

te La w Judge ’ s (“ ALJ” ) de te rm ina tion of he r phy sic a l re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ R FC ” ) wa s ina c c ura t e b e c a use th e ALJ

e rrone ously re

je c te d the opinion of Dr. Johnson, who ha d e xa m i ne d B e rke bile , in fa vor of the opinion of Dr. B illinghurst, a non-tre a ting sta

te a ge nc y phy sic i a n. The C o m m issione r m ay not re

je c t the opinion of a

n e xa m ining o r tre a ting
p hy sic ia n without spe c ific a nd le gitim a te re a sons t ha t a re supporte d by substa ntia l

e vide nc e in the re c ord. Le ste r v
. C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th C i r. 1996). He re , the ALJ c onc lude d tha t “ b a se d on the c l a im a nt’ s routine a c tiviti es as we ll a s he r

re ports in the e vide nc e of re c ord re ga rding a highe r le ve l of func t ioning t h an tha t

a lle ge d” she wa s not a s lim ite d a s indic a te d by Dr. Johnson.
W hile the ALJ c ould not e xc lusive l y re ly on the o pinion of Dr. B i llinghurst to

re je c t the opinion of e xa m ining phy sic ia n Dr. Johnson, id. a t 831, the A LJ a dditiona lly

re lie d on c linic a l findings, c o nflic ting m e dic a l opinions, c onflic ti n g p h y sic ia n’ s
tre a tm e n t note s, a n d the c la im a nt’ s da ily a c tivitie s. Se e Batson v
. C omm’r Soc ial Se c
. Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th C ir. 2004).

2The re c ord s h ow s Berke bile wa s a ble t o pa rtic ipa te i n a n

um be r of a c tivitie s

a round he r hom e a

nd m a na g e phy sic a l pa in through c onse rva tive tre a tm e nts, suc h a s ibuprofe n a nd a ne c k pillow. In a ddition, the m e dic a l r eco rd Dr. B illinghurst

re vie we d inc lude d a la t e r m e dic a l re port by Dr. Stoltz , a nothe r e xa m ining phy sic ia n, who re porte d norm a l ra

nge o f m otion a nd grip stre ngth te sting a nd opine d B e rke bile ’ s

o n ly lim its we re working a t unprote c te d he ights or a round m oving m e c ha nic a l p ar t s be c a use o f he r sle e p a

pnea. S e e Andre w

s v
. Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 1995) (re ports o f non-e xa m ining phy sic ia ns “ m a y s e rve a s substa

ntia l e v ide nc e whe n the y a re supporte d by othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord a nd a re c o nsiste nt with it” ); se e also Thomas v
. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 9 54 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ W h e re the e vide nc e is

susc e ptible to m o re tha

n one ra tiona l inte rpre ta tion, one of whic h supports the ALJ’ s de c ision, the ALJ’ s c o n c lusion m ust be uphe ld.” ). The A L J ga ve spe c ific a nd le gitim a te re a sons for disc ounting the opinion of
B e rke bile ’ s tre a ting c linic a l psy c hia trist, D r. Howse pia n. As a tre a ting phy sic ia

n, Dr.
Howse pia n is a c c orde d substa

ntia l de fe re n c e . Turne r v
. C o mm’r Soc i al Se c
. Admin. , 613 F.3d 1217, 1 222 (9th C ir. 2010). T h e AL J la rge ly c re dite d D r. Howse pia n’ s opinions re ga

rding B e rke bil e ’ s m e n ta l c ondition, a c knowle dge d s he c ould not pe rform he r pa st work be c a

use of the se p roble m s, a nd inc lude d in the R FC tha t she c ould only follow s im

ple instruc t ions a nd n e e de d to ha ve l im ite d c onta c t with t he ge ne ra l public

.

3The ALJ, howe ve r, a lso offe re d s pe c ific re a s o n s for c o nc luding B e rke bile ’ s

func tions we re not a s lim ite d a s Dr. Howse p ia n sugge ste d in his Oc tobe r 2012 form , inc l uding the doc tor’ s ow n t r eat m e nt note s, whic h re c om m e nde d s he not pursue disa bility , indic a te d h o w w el l B e rke bile wa s doing, e spe c i a lly in the s e ve ra l m onths
pre c e ding the opinion (“ be tte r tha n I ha ve y e t se e n he r” ), a nd indic a te d she wa s sta ble

on he r psy c hia tric m e dic a tions. The ALJ al so pe rm issibly c onside re d tha t notwithsta

nding ha ving ha d the se c onditions sinc e c hildhood, she wa s pre viously a ble
to w ork, c om

ple te c olle ge , a nd se rve in t he Arm y . Se e G r eg o r

y v
. Bow e n, 844 F.2d 664, 667 (9th C ir. 1988) (ba c k c ondition ha d re m a ine d c o nsta nt for a num

be r of y e a rs but ha d not pre ve nte d c l a im a nt from working ove r tha t tim e ); se e also O sen b r o c k v
. Apfe l , 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th C ir. 2001).
Ne w e vide nc e subm itte d a fte r the ALJ’ s de c ision did not re quire re m a nd. Dr.
B a y lor’ s opinion wa s ba s e d on Pla intiff’ s sle e p a pne a a nd re sulting sle e pine ss on the job, whic h ha d a l re a dy be e n a ddre sse d. Se e May e s v
. Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th C ir. 2 001) (to wa rra n t re m a nd, c la im a nt m u st s how “ re a sona

ble possibility

” ne w

e vide nc e would ha ve c ha nge d outc om e ). Nor doe s Dr. Howse pia n ’ s M a y 20 1 3 opinion c re a te a re a sona

ble p o ssibility of a diffe re n t outc om e , a s it la rge ly re fle c ts the

sa m e opinions a s in O c tobe r 2012, but c ouc he d m ore in soc ia l se c urity p a rla nc e .

4M ore o ve r, m e dic a l opinions issue d a fte r a n a dve rse ruling a re “ le ss pe rsua sive .” Se e

Mac ri v . C

hate r , 93 F.3d 540, 544 (9th C ir. 1996). Fina lly , the ALJ a g re e d t

ha t B e rke bile ’ s “ m e dic a lly de t e rm ina b le im pa irm e nts

c ould re a sona

bly be e xpe c te d to c a

u se the a l le ge d sy m

ptom s” but found tha t he r
sta te m e nts c onc e rning the inte nsity , pe rsiste nc e a nd l im iting e ffe c ts of he r sy m ptom s

we re not e ntire ly c re dible

. The ALJ provide d suffic ie ntly spe c ific c re dibility findings

a nd c le a r a n d c onvinc ing re a sons for d o i n g so, inc luding a la c k of m e dic a l e vide nc e
to c o rrobora te t

he sy m pt o m s , Batson , 359 F.3d a t 1196–97, inc onsiste nc y with

re porte d da ily a c tivitie s , Vale ntine v
. C omm’r Soc ial Se c
. Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th C ir. 2009), a nd re c e ipt of une m ploy m e nt be ne fits t oge the r with tes t i m ony tha t

c la im a nt h e ld he rse lf out a s a va ila ble for work, C

armic k le v
. C omm’r , 533 F.3d 1155, 1161–62 (9th C ir. 2008).
AFFIRM E D.

5