N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
KERI M IGLIORETTO, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-36047 D.C . No. 6:12-c v-01136-JE
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 M a l c olm F. M arsh, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 4, 2017 ** B e fore : PR EGER SON, LEAVY, a n d OW ENS, C irc u it Judge s. Ke ri M igliore tto a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t, a fte r an a dm inistra

tive 

# FIL ED JAN 06 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 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).la

w judge (ALJ) c o nc lude d tha t M igliore tto did not ove

rc om e the pre sum

ption of
c ontinuing non-disa

bility from a pre vious de c ision finding he r not disa ble d. W e a ffirm
. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo, a nd m ay se t a side the de nia l of be ne fits only

if it is not supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e or c onta ins le ga l e rror. 42 U.S.C . § 405(g); Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). 1. The ALJ provide d spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a s ons for re je c ting M igliore tto’ s subje c tive c om p la ints, inc luding he r da ily a c tivitie s, provide rs’ obse rvations, a

nd la c k of m otiva

tion to work. Se eSmole n v . C hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th C ir. 1996) (disc u ssing fa c tors c o nside re d in e va luating c re dibility ); se e also Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th C ir. 2008) (la c k of m otiva tion to work); Tonape ty a n v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th C ir. 2001) (te nde nc y to
e xa gge rate ); c

f. Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th C ir. 2007) (da ily a c tivitie s). 2. The ALJ provide d spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a s ons for re je c ting
c e rta in m e dic a l opinions in de te rm ining M igliore tto’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (RFC ). Tommase tti , 533 F.3d a t 1041 (re c iting sta

nda rd). The ALJ prope rly
re je c te d the opinions of tre ating providers Ste pha n Am e s , M .D., Ja

m e s M orris, M .D., a nd R on Le c hnyr, Ph.D., D.W .W ., a nd e x am ining provider R

y an Sc o tt, Ph.D., be c a

use the provide rs’ opinions were ba se d on M igliore tto’ s prope rly 2disc ounte d c re d ibility and we re inc onsiste nt with the ir own obje c tive findings a nd the m e dic a l re c ord. Id. (pe rm itting ALJ to re j e c t opinion ba se d on c la im ant’ s inc re dible se lf-re ports). Any e rror in not e xpre s sly re je c t ing Dr. Le c hny

r’ s opinion ba se d on M igliore tto’ s disc ounte d c re dibility is ha rm le ss, be c a

use it is

“ inc onse que ntia l to theultim ate nondisa bility de te rm ination.” Brow n-Hunte r v . C olv in , 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). 3. M igliore tto c onte nds tha t the pre sum

p tion of c ontinuing non-disa bility unde r C hav e z v . Bow e n , 844 F.2d 691, 693 (9th C ir. 1988) doe s not a pply . She
argue s tha

t c h ange d c onditions re

but thepre sum

ption of non-disa

bility , he r panic disorde r and de pre ssion a re m ore se ve re , he r de g e n e rative disc dise a s e and obe sity
are n e w im

pa irm e nts, a

nd the ALJ de fa c to re ope ne d he r prior a p plic ation by
re a s se ssing the e vide n c e . The ALJ prope rly de te rm ine d tha

t ne ithe r M i gliore tto’ s ne w nor e xisting im

pa irm e nts a lte re d the origina l R FC , a nd tha t the re ha d be e n no le ga lly signific ant c ha

nge in a ge c ate gory , so a s to ove rc om e the pre s um ption of
c ontinuing non-disa

bility
. Vasque

z v . Astrue , 572 F.3d 586, 597-98 (9th C ir. 2009) (c iting le g a lly

signific ant a ge c ha

nge a s a c ha nge d c i rc um sta

nc e ); Leste r

v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 827 (9th C ir. 1995) (c iting inc re a se d se ve rity of im p a irm e nt). Additionally , the ALJ’ s disc ussion of the m e rits, followe d

by a de nia l of M igllliore tto’ s c la im s a s ba rre d by the c ontinue d pre s um

ption of non-disa

bility , did 3not c onstitute a re ope ning. Se e K

rumpe lman v . He c k

le r , 767 F.2d 586, 589 (9th C ir. 1985). The ALJ c o m pa re d the c la im s to de te rm ine whe the r the pre sum ption should a pply , a nd did not “ c onside r[] ‘ on the m e rits’ the issue of [M i gliore tto’ s] disa bility during thea lre a d

y -a djudic ate d pe riod.” Leste r , 81 F.3d a t 827 n.3 (quoting Gre

gory v . Bow e n , 844 F.2d 664, 666 (9th C ir. 1988)); se e also K rumpe l man , 767 F.2d a

t 589. M ore ove r, the ALJ’ s a lte rnative , unc ha lle nge d ste p 5 c onc lusion tha

t M igliore tto c a

n pe rform othe r work ba se d

on the we ll-supporte d
and unc ha

nge d R FC de te rm ination re nde rs a ny e rror in e va l uating M igliore tto’ s c urre nt im

pa irm e nts inc onse q

ue ntia l
. Se eBrow n -Hunte r , 806 F.3d a t 492. 4. Fina lly , the ALJ provide d a re a s on “ ge rm a

ne to the witne ss” for re

je c ting the t e stim ony

of M i gliore tto’ s e x-husba nd, la y witne ss B rian M igliore tto. TheALJ note d tha t B ria n’ s te s tim ony

wa s sim ila

r to M igliore tto’ s prope rly re je c te d subje c tive c om

pla ints. S e e Molina , 674 F.3d a

t 1114 (re c iting sta

nda rd); Vale ntine
v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th C ir. 2009) (c i ting re je c tion of c la im ant’ s own subje c tive c om pla ints a s a

ge rm an e re a son). Any

e rror in not
e xplic itly re je c ting B rian’ s te stim ony wa s inc onse que ntia l to theultim ate nondisa bility de te rm i nation. Brow n-Hunte r , 806 F.3d a t 492. AFFIRM E D.

4