N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FELISHA L SALC HENB ER G, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-35389 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05587-KLS 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 Kare n L. Strom

bom , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d July 12, 2013 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KLEINFELD, M . SM ITH, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s.
Fe lisha Sa lc he n be rg a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing a n Adm inistra

tive La w Judge ’ s (“ A LJ’ s” ) de nia l of he r a pplic at ion for Soc ia l Se c urity



# FIL ED JUL 22 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 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).disa

bility insura nc e be n e fits a

nd Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc om e . W e re vie wde novo, a nd “ disturb thede nia l of be ne fits only if the de c ision c onta ins le ga l e rror or is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .” Tom

m a se tti v. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2008) (quota tion m arks om itte d). W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt.
I.
The ALJ provide d

“ spe c ific , c le ar an d c onvinc ing” re a sons, supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , for finding tha t Sa lc he n b e rg’ s sta te m e nts a bout he r sy

m ptom s we re not fully

c re d i ble . Id. at 1039 (quota tion m arks om itte d). Evide nc e supporte d the ALJ’ s finding tha t Sa lc he nbe rg e xa gge ra t e d the e ffe c t of he r tre m ors. Sa lc he nbe rg re porte d in August 2007 tha t she no longe r ha d a

tre m or, a nd som e of he r m e dic a l re c ords tha

t m ight re a sona

b ly be e xpe c te d to c o nta in re fe re nc e s to tre m ors did not. The

ALJ a l s o prope rly found tha t “ [c ] ontra

ry to he r a sse rtions in he r disa bility a pplic ation, thec la im ant ha s re porte d im prove m e nt of he r [m e nta l he a lth] sym

ptom s.” Sa lc he nbe rg’ s m e dic a l re c ords show tha t she re p orte d im prove m e nt in he r m e nta l he a lth sy m ptom s at va

rious tim e s in 2008 a

nd 2009.

“ Eve n whe n the e vide nc e is susc e ptible to m ore tha n one rat iona l inte rpre t ation, we m ust uphold the

ALJ’ s findings if the

y are supporte d by infe re nc e s re a sona b ly 2draw n from

the re c o rd.” M olina

v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th C ir. 2012). Eve n if we we re to a ssum e tha t som e of the ALJ’ s othe r re a sons for disc ounting Sa lc he nbe rg’ s c re dibility

we re ina de quate ly supporte d, those e rrors would be ha rm le s s. Se e C arm i c kle v. C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . Adm in., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th C ir. 2008).
II.
The ALJ ga

ve “ spe c i fic and le gitim ate re a sons tha t a re supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e ” for giving little we ight to the

opinions of Dr. Alvord a nd Dr. R a gone si, Sa lc he nbe rg’ s e xam i ning psy c hologists. B a y l iss v. B arnha

rt, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005); se e a lso W i dm ark v. B a rnha rt, 454 F.3d 1063, 1066–67 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t the “ spe c ific and le g itim ate ” sta nda rd a pplie s whe re the re is a

c o nflic t be twe e n the opinion of a n e xam ining phy sic ia

n and tha t of a re vie wing phy s ic ia

n).
The ALJ pla c e d littlewe ight on Dr. Alvord’ s re port in pa rt be c a u se

“ [Sa lc he nbe rg’ s] se lf-re p o rte d sy m ptom s a ppe ar to be the ba sis for Dr. Alvord’ s opine d lim ita tions. Howe v e r, his obse rvations do not m atc h his opine d 3lim ita

tions.” The ALJ outline d spe c ific inc onsiste n c ie s be t we e n Sa lc he nbe rg’ s de sc ription of he r sym

ptom s a nd Dr. Alvord’ s c linic a l a sse ssm e nt a nd obse rvations. The se we re spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons to disc ount Dr. Alvord’ s opinion. Se e Tom

m a se tti, 533 F.3d a

t 1041 (“ An ALJ m ay

re je c t a tre ating phy sic ia n’ s opinion if it is base d to a la rge e xte nt on a

c la im ant’ s se lf-re ports tha t have be e n prope rly disc ounte d

a s inc re dible .” ) (quota

tion m arks om itte d); M orga n v. C om m ’ r of Soc . Se c . Adm in., 169 F.3d 595, 603 (9th C ir. 1999) (sta t ing tha t the A LJ is re sponsible for “ [d] e te rm ining whe the r inc onsiste n c i e s a re m at e ria l (or are i n fa c t inc onsiste nc ie s at a ll) a nd whe the r c e rta in fa c tors a re re le v ant to disc ount theopinions of [c la im ant’ s doc tors] . . . .” ). R y an v. C om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , 528 F.3d 1194 (9th C ir. 2008), is ina pposite . R

y an holds tha

t “ an ALJ doe s not provide

c le ar a n d c onvinc ing re a s ons for re je c ting a n e xam ining phy sic ia n’ s opinion by

que stioning the

c re dibility

of the patie nt’ s c om

pla ints whe re the doc tor doe s not disc re dit thosec om pla ints a nd supports his ultim

ate opinion with his own obse rvations.” Id. at 1199–1200. He re , howe ve r, Dr. Alvord did not support his opinion with his own obse rvat ions.
The ALJ pla c e d littlewe ight on Dr. Ra g one s i’ s opinion for sim ila r re a sons. The ALJ found tha

t Dr. R a gone si’ s opinion wa s ba s e d in la rge pa rt upon 4Sa lc he nbe rg’ s se lf-re porte d sy m ptom s, a nd tha t Dr. R a gone si’ s re port c onta ine d inte rna l inc onsiste nc ie s. The se findings a re spe c ific an d le gitim ate re a sons to disc ount Dr. R a gone si’ s opinion. If a ny of the ALJ’ s othe r re a s ons for re je c ting Dr. Alvord a

nd Dr. R a g o ne s i’ s opinions were e rror, the y we re ha rm l e ss. Se e M olina , 674 F.3d a

t 1111, 1115.
III.
Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha

t Dr. Pe te rson’ s

“ low-pre ssure ” work limita tion wa s ba se d on Sa lc he nbe rg’ s subje c tive c om pla int that she wa s una

ble to tole ra te the stre ss of e m ploy m e nt. The ALJ wa s thus not re quire d to inc lude a

“ low-pre ssure ” work lim ita tion in he r re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity de te rm i nation. Se e B ay liss, 427 F.3d a t 1217.
The de c ision of thedistric t c ourt is AFFIR M ED.

5