N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR VIN THOM A S SHOEM AKER II, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-35858 D.C . No. 6:14-c v-01220-KI
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Garr M . King, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 19, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd TR OTT a

n d SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. M arvin Thom a s Shoe m a ke r II a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s a ffirm anc e of the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of his a pplic a tion for disa

bility insura

nc e be ne fits unde r Title s II and XVI of the Soc i a l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion 

# FIL ED JAN 23 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 42 U.S.C . § 405(g). W e re vie w de novo, Attmore v . C olv in , 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th C ir. 2016), a nd we a ffirm
. I The Adm inistra

tive La wJudge did not e rr in a ffording only “ som e we ight” to the opinion of e xam ining psy c hologist Dr. Ec kste i n. B e c a use Dr. Ec kste in’ s
e xam ining opinion wa s inc onsiste nt with other m e d ic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord, the ALJ ha d to provide “ spe c i fic and le gitim a t e re a s ons” to re je c t Dr. Ec kste in’ s opinion. 1 Leste r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C ir. 1996). The ALJ ga v e two spe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons for giving Dr. Ec k ste in’ s opinion “ s om e we ight.” First, the ALJ note d tha

t the pre pa

re d form fille d out by

Dr. Ec k ste in provide d only

options tha

t c orre lat e to no lim

ita tions, m arke d lim ita

t ions, or
e xtre m e lim ita

tions. B e c a

use the form

wa s lim iting, the

ALJ inste a d c re dite d Dr. Ec kste in’ s na

rra tive e va luation. An ALJ “ m ay pe rm issibly

re je c t[] . . . c he c k-off
re ports tha

t [do] not c onta in a

ny e xpla nation of theba se s of the ir c o nc lusions.” Molina , 674 F.3d a

t 1111. TheALJ re a sona bly c ha ra c te riz e d Dr. Ec k ste in’ s

1 Shoe m a ke r argue s tha

t the a pplic a ble sta nda rd is whe the r the ALJ ga

ve “ c l e ar and c onvinc i ng” re a sons, Hill v . Astrue , 698 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th C ir. 2012), be c a

use Dr. Ec kste in’ s opinion wa s ba se d on te sting tha t the othe r phy sic ia ns did not c onside r. This a rgum e nt doe s not ha

ve m e rit. Though Dr. Ec kste in e m

ploy e d a diffe re nt m e thod for a sse ssing Shoe m ake r’ s psy c hologic a l func tioning, she sought to e v a luate the sa m e c ha ra c te ristic s a s Dr. Sa lba dor a nd the a ge nc y psy c hologists did. 2na

rra tive e va luation a s supporting m ode ra te lim ita

tions ra the r tha n a c om ple te ina b ility to work. Se c ond, the ALJ note d tha t Dr. Ec kste in wrote in he r se c o n d e va luation tha t Shoe m ak e r’ s situa

tion wa s e sse ntia lly unc ha nge d from the y e ar be fore , but inc o nsiste ntly

re duc e d his GAF sc ore from 52 to 45. La c king the e xpla nation in Dr. Ec kste in’ s supple m e n ta l le tte r, the ALJ ga ve a spe c ific and le gitim a te re a son for disc re diting the

lowe r GAF sc ore . The ALJ ga

ve thre e a dditiona l re a s ons tha t a re not spe c i fic or le gitim a te . First, the ALJ note d Shoe m a ke r’ s fa ilure to obta in psy c hothe ra py or ta ke his psy c hotropic m e dic a tions. Aside from whe the r the se obse rva tions a re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , the y

are not a spe c ific or le gitim a te re a son to que stion Dr. Ec kste in’ s opinion. Se c ond, the ALJ sta t e d tha t Dr. Ec k ste in did not a

ttribute any of Shoe m a ke r’ s c o gnitive de fic its to m arijua na , while Dr. Sa lba dor note d tha t it
wa s unc le ar how m

u c h, if a ny , of Shoe m ake r’ s anxie t y wa s re late d to m arijua

na
use . This re a son is not spe c ific or le gitim a te be c a use the se opinions a

re not inc o nsiste nt. Third, the

ALJ pe rc e i ve d Dr. Ec kste in’ s se c ond opinion to be ove ra ll

“ le ss im p artia l a nd m ore a pologe tic ,” whic h is not spe c ific or le g itim a te . Howe ve r, the s e e rrors are ha

rm le ss be c a

use the ALJ provide d two le ga l ly suffic ie nt re a sons

3supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . C

armic k le v . C omm'r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th C ir. 2008). II The ALJ did not err in a sse ssing Shoe m ake r’ s re side ntia l func tiona l
c a pa c ity . Shoe m a ke r a lle ge s tha t the ALJ e rre d in m aking a n a dve rsity c re dibility
a sse ssm e nt of his te stim ony . Howe ve r, the R FC a c c om

m odate s Shoe m ake r’ s de sc ription of his sy

m ptom s a nd is supporte d by substa n tia l e vide nc e . C

armic k l e , 533 F.3d a

t 1163. B e c a

use the ALJ’ s inte rpre tation of Shoe m ake r’ s te stim ony is
ra tiona l, the ALJ’ s de c i sion m ust be uphe ld. Molina , 674 a t 1111. Shoe m a ke r ide n tifie s thre e lim ita tions tha t he a l le ge s would be pa

rt of the RFC if the ALJ ha d fully

c re dite d his te stim ony . First, he argue s tha t the R FC should inc lude a ne e d to re st or lie down a t will. Shoe m ake r te s tifie d tha t whe n his pa in is se ve re , he ge ts up a nd down, m ove s a

round in his se a t to find a c om forta ble spot, a nd lie s down quite

a bit. He te stifie d tha

t som e tim e s m oving a

round c an
m ake the pa in be tte r. A ra tiona l inte rpre t a tion of this te stim ony is c onsiste n t with the R FC re quiring “ the fre e dom to shift in his c

ha i r a t will without ta

king him off ta sk.” Se c ond, a

nd re late dly , Shoe m ake r argue s tha t the RFC should re fle c t tha t he
c annot m a inta in a

tte ntion be c a

use his pa in inte rfe re s with his a bility to foc us or
4pa

y a tte ntion to things. Shoe m a ke r te stifie d

tha t the pa in inte rfe re s with his a bility to foc us “ quite a

bit,” “ a t le a st e ve ry

we e k.” Howe ve r, Shoe m a ke r ha s a lso
re porte d tha

t he doe s not ha

ve “ too m any

diffic ultie s with his c onc e ntration
a lthough his pa

in c a n c a use him to lose foc us whe n he is wa t c hing a show.” The ALJ found tha

t Shoe m a ke r ha d m ode ra te diffic ultie s with c onc e n tra tion, pe rsiste nc e , a

nd pa c e an d lim ite d Shoe m ake r to “ sim ple , routine ta s ks” with “ the fre e dom to shift in his c

h a ir at will without ta

king him off ta sk.” The se findings
are a ra tiona l inte rpre tation of Shoe m ake r’ s se lf-re porte d lim ite d c a pa c ity to pa y
a tte ntion dueto his pa in. Third, Shoe m a ke r argue s tha t the RFC should inc orporate an ina bility to
a c c e pt instruc tions a

nd re spond a

ppropria t e ly to c ritic ism

from supe rvisors. The RFC re fle c ts tha

t Shoe m a ke r “ c annot work with the public or c lose ly

with c oworke rs,” “ c a

nnot pe rform

ta sks a s pa

rt of a te am ,” and “ is lim ite d to e ve r inte ra c ting in c lose vic inity with m ore tha

n two or thre e othe r pe rsons.” This finding is c onsiste nt with a ra tiona l inte rpre tation of Shoe m ake r’ s te stim ony tha t he doe sn’ t de a l we ll with other pe ople and tha t he c an de a l with pe ople one -on-one but not in la

rge r groups. AFFIRM E D.

5