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 ISTEL S. DEFRE ES,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 15-17122 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00339-DGC
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 Dav id G. C am

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 20, 2017 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY a nd SILVER

M AN. C irc uit Judge s. Kriste l S. De fre e s a

ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm i ng the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of De fre e s’ s a p plic ations for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc o m e unde r Title s II and XVI of the



# FIL ED MAR 27 2017 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 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).Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. De fre e s c o nte nds tha t the a d m inistra tive la w judge (“ ALJ” )
e rre d in giving little

we ight to the

m e dic a l opinion of e xam ining phy sic ia n Jona tha n M urphy , M .D. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the d istric t c o urt’ s orde r de novo, Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012), a nd we a ffirm
. As a n initia l m atte r, c ontra

ry to De fre e s’ s c onte ntion tha t Dr. M urphy ’ s opinion wa s unc ontra dic te d, Dr. R obe rt Quinone s a ppe ars to ha

ve c ontra dic te d Dr. M urphy whe n he disa gre e d with Dr. Murphy ’ s a sse ssm e nt a nd c onc lude d tha

t De fre e s wa s not disa

ble d . M ore ove r, e ve n if Dr. M urphy ’ s opinion is de e m e d
unc ontra dic te d, the ALJ’ s re a sons for re je c ting his opinion a

lso m e e t the highe r

“ c l e ar and c onvinc i ng” sta nda rd. Se eLes te r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C ir. 1996). First, the ALJ re a sona bly disc ounte d

Dr. M urphy ’ s opinion be c a use his finding of e xtre m e fatigue and disa bility wa s inc onsiste nt with his own c l inic a l findings. Se e Batson v
. C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th C ir. 2004) (ALJ m a

y re j e c t a doc tor’ s opinion if it is inc onsiste nt with tha t doc tor’ s c linic a l findings). Se c ond, the ALJ re a sona bly found tha

t Dr. M urphy ’ s e xam findings we re inc onsiste nt with other m e dic a l e vide nc e , na m e l y Nurse Da

na R osda hl’ s obse rvations of De fre e s. Se eTommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041

1 5
- 1 7 1 2 2 2(9th C ir. 2008) (ALJ m ay re je c t a phy s ic ia n’ s opinion tha

t is inc onsiste nt with
m e dic a l re c ords). Although the ALJ im prope rly re lie d on Nurse R osda

hl’ s sta te m e nt tha

t De fre e s ha d “ found a

doc tor [Dr. M urphy ] to sign off on her disa bility pa pe rwork . . . a

n d he will sign off on eve rything,” se eLeste r , 81 F.3d a t 832 (ALJ “ m ay

not a ssum e tha

t doc tors routine ly

lie in orde r to he lp the ir patie nts
c olle c t disa

bility be n e fits” ), this is ha rm le ss e rror be c a

use the ALJ proffe re d othe r le gitim ate re a sons for disc ounting Dr. M urphy ’ s opinion, se eC

a r mic k lev . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th C ir. 2008). AFFIRM E D.

1 5
- 1 7 1 2 2 3