N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SHERR Y P. B EC K ER , 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. 19-35592 D.C . No. 4:18-c v-00029-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 June 3, 2020 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : C HR ISTEN, WA TFORD, a nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. She rry B e c ke r a ppe a ls the de c ision of Adm inistra tive La w Judge (ALJ) La C ara finding B e c ke r not disa

ble d be twe e n Fe brua

ry 2009 a nd August 2013, a

nd de ny ing he r Soc ia l Se c urity be n e fits for tha

t pe riod. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt 

# FIL ED JUN 5 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).to 42 U.S.C . § 405(g) a nd we a ffirm
. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s a n d proc e dura l history

of the c a se , we re c ite the m only a s ne c e ssa

ry to
re solve the issue s on a

p pe a l
. B e c ke r’ s c l a im

ha s be e n he ard by

two diffe re nt ALJs in thre e he arings ove r the c ourse of te n y e ars. The nature of B e c ke r’ s disa b i lity c la im involve s c om pla i nts of phy sic a l pa in tha t a re not dire c tly

tra c e a ble to phy sic a l a ilm e nts. ALJ La C ara

a c c o unte d for B e c ke r’ s som at oform disorde r but, a fte r re vie wing the
e ntire m e dic a l re c o rd, de te rm ine d tha t B e c ke r’ s a c t

ua l a c tivity

wa s not c o nsiste nt with a finding tha

t she wa s inc a

pa ble of susta ining ga i nful e m ploy m e nt be t we e n 2009 a nd 2013. On a ppe a l, B e c ke r argue s tha

t ALJ La C ara

did not c om

ply with thesc ope of the Appe a ls C ounc il’ s re m and orde r. Although B e c ke r supe rfic ia lly fra m e s this
argum e nt in te rm s of the ALJ’ s c om plia nc e with there m and orde r, she doe s not
e xpla in how the Appe a ls C ounc il’ s dire c tions to ALJ LaC ara diffe r from

an ALJ’ s ty pic a l sc ope of re vie w, nor e xpla in why our re vie w should diffe r from one for substa ntia l e vide nc e . The re fore , we re vie w to de te rm ine whe the r substa n tia l
e vide nc e supports ALJ La C ara ’ s de c ision a nd whe the r ALJ La C ara

a p plie d the
c orre c t le ga l sta

nda rds. B e c ke r c ha l le nge s thre e a spe c ts of ALJ La C ara ’ s de c ision;
a ll thre e are supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e and a

c orre c t a pplic ation of thela

w.
2Spe c ific a lly , ALJ La C ara obta ine d a dditiona l m e dic a l e xpe rt te stim ony to
re c o nside r and re e va l uate whe the r B e c ke r m e dic a lly im prove d in 2009. This inc l ude d te stim ony

c onc e rning he r som atoform disorde r. ALJ La C ara

provide d a de ta ile d a na ly sis of how the obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e re ve a le d tha t B e c k e r ha d im prove d ove r tim e and tha

t B e c ke r’ s a c tua l a c tivitie s re fle c te d a nd supporte d a finding of m e dic a l im

prove m e nt. ALJ La C a

ra re c onside re d

B e c ke r’ s psy c hologic a l im

prove m e nt a s we ll, inc luding Dr. M artino’ s finding tha t he r som atoform

disorde r wa s in pa

rtia l re m ission. ALJ LaC ara wa s not re quire d to a sk the m e dic a l e xpe rts e xplic i t ly a bout m e d ic a l im

prove m e nt or c ite the ir te stim ony in he r ana ly sis of B e c k e r’ s im prove m e n t; it is the

duty of the ALJ to de te rm ine im prove m e nt by

c om pa ring the c urre nt m e dic a l se v e rity with thec l a im ant’ s
m e dic a l se ve rity a s of the la st fa vora b le de c ision. 20 C .F.R . § 416.994(b)(1)(vii). ALJ La C ara

a lso prope rly

re e va luate d a

nd re we ighe d Dr. Kinde ll’ s opinion
and de c line d to giveit signific ant we ight, c iting spe c i fic and le gitim ate re a s ons. Se e Andre w

s v . Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 1995). ALJ La C ara note d that both the obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e an d the opinions of seve ra l nontre ating phy sic ia ns c ontra dic te d Dr. Kinde l l’ s opinion. Se e 20 C .F.R . § 416.927(c ). ALJ La C ara a l so prope rly c onside re d Dr. Fe igin’ s opinion a bout B e c ke r’ s m e nta l
re sidua l func t iona l c a

pa c ity
. On a

ppe a l, B e c ke r foc use s on the ALJ’ s fa ilure to
3e xpla in why she did not a dopt Dr. Fe igin’ s opinion tha t “ signific ant c ha

nge s in routine should beav oide d,” but she ne ithe r e xpla ins how he r pa st re le va nt work a s a bookke e pe r involve d signific ant c ha nge s in routine , nor de m onstra te s tha t Dr. Fe igin’ s sta

te m e nt wa s a

lim ita tion, a nd not a re c om m e ndation. S

e e Rounds v
. C omm’r SSA , 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th C ir. 2015). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports ALJ LaC ara ’ s de c ision, whic h c om plie d fully with thesc ope of re vie w re q u ire d. AFFIRM E D.

4