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 ISTEN YOUNG-FITC H, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of the Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-36066 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00740-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 i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 4, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : KOZINSKI, FISHER , a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. 1. The Adm inistra

tive La w Judge (ALJ) provide d spe c ific , c le ar and
c onvinc i ng re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e for disbe lie ving Kriste n Young-Fitc h’ s te stim ony

c onc e rning he r sym

ptom s a nd limita tions. Se e Batson v
. C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1196–97 (9th C i r. 2004). In 

# FIL ED NOV 25 2015 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.Pa ge 2 of 4

pa rtic u la r, the ALJ note d tha

t obje c tive m e d ic a l re c ords a n d e vide nc e of YoungFitc h’ s drug-se e king be havior unde rm ine d the c re dibility of he r c la im s a s to the inte nsity and fre q u e nc y of he r m igra ine s a

nd othe r phy sic a l a ilm e nts. Se e Edlund
v . Massanari , 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th C ir. 2001); Morgan v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 169 F.3d 595, 598–600 (9th C ir. 1999). Young-Fitch ’ s c re dibility wa s furthe r unde rm ine d by

re ports from

two e xam ining phy sic ia

ns who indic ate d tha

t Young-Fitc h wa s distra c tible from he r a lle ge d pa in. The ALJ the re fore did not e rr in de c lining to fac tor into the re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (RFC ) a sse ssm e nt a ll of the l im ita tions tha t Y o ung-Fitc h c la im e d a ffe c te d he r a b ility to work. 2. The ALJ provide d c le ar and c onvinc i ng re a sons for re je c t ing e xam ining psy c hologist Dr. M ic ha e l O’ C onne ll’ s opinion re ga rding thee ffe c t tha

t YoungFitc h’ s m e nta l im

pa irm e nts would ha

ve on he r a

bility to work. Se e Pitze r v . Sulliva n , 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th C ir. 1990). TheALJ found tha t (1) Dr. O’ C onne ll ba se d his opinion prim

arily on Young-Fitc h’ s subje c tive c om p la ints, whic h the ALJ found not fully

c re dible ; (2) m ost of Young-Fitc h’ s obje c tive m e nta l sta tus te sts we re within a

ve ra ge lim its; a

nd (3) a ny sy m ptom s Young-Fitc h e xpe rie nc e d did not lim

it he r da ily

living a c tivitie s. Substa

ntia l e vide n c e supports e a c h of the se findings. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the ALJ’ s finding tha

t Young-Fitc h’ s
m e nta l im pa irm e nts pre se nte d o nly

“ m ild” func tiona l lim ita

tions.Pa ge 3 of 4

3. The ALJ did not err by de ny ing Young-Fitc h’ s re que st to supplem e nt the
re c o rd with a

m e nta l R FC a sse ssm e nt. S

e e May e s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th C ir. 2001); Re e d v . Massanari , 270 F.3d 838, 842–43 (9th C ir. 2001). The ALJ prope rly

c onc lude d that a

ny furthe r inquiry into Dr. O’ C onne ll’ s
a sse ssm e nt of Young-Fitc h’ s m e nta l im pa irm e nts wa s unne c e s sa

ry due to the de arth of obje c tive support for his opinion. 4. The ALJ did not err in giving little we ight to tre ating phy sic i an Dr. R om a Sprung’ s opinion tha

t Young-Fitc h c ould not sta nd or wa lk for m o re tha

n 20
m inute s , lift 10 pounds, or work a n 8-hour da

y . The ALJ re l ie d in pa

rt on
none xam ining neurologist Dr. Willia m De B olt’ s te stim ony

tha t Young-Fitc h ’ s lifting, walking, a

nd sta nding lim ita tions we re se lf-im

pose d a n d tha t Dr. Sprung’ s opinion la c ke d obje c tive support. TheALJ did not re ly sole ly on Dr. De B o lt’ s te stim ony , but inste a d offe re d a dditional re a s ons, supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e , for re

je c ting Dr. Sprung’ s a sse ssm e nt of Young-Fitc h’ s phy sic a l func tiona l c a

pa c ity . The ALJ note d tha t m e dic a l re c ords from

2010 doc um e nt Young-Fitc h’ s ge n e ra l im prove m e nt a

nd tha t Dr. Sprung’ s own note s indic ate tha t Young-Fitc h ove ruse d he r m e dic ation a nd e xhibite d

drug-se e king be havior. The ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha

t Young-Fitc h wa s not fully c re d ible provide d a

furthe rPa ge 4 of 4

ba sis for re

je c ting theportions of Dr. Sprung’ s re port tha t sim p ly sum m ariz e d Young-Fitc h’ s subje c tive c om pla ints. 5. The ALJ prope rly

found tha

t Young-Fitc h

re t a ins thea

bility to pe rform jobs tha t e xist in substa

ntia l num be rs in the nationa l e c onom y . A voc ationa l e xpe rt te stifie d tha

t a n individual of Young-Fitc h’ s a ge and e duc ation with the R FC to pe rform light e xe rtiona l work with no e xte nde d e xposure to e xc e s sive noise , vibra tion, or re spira

tory irrita nts c ould work a s a

ba r atte nda nt, m arking c le rk, be nc h ha n d, suture winde r, or ty

pe c opy e xam ine r. The ALJ did not err by
om i tting from

the hy p othe tic a l a

ny lim ita tions re late d

to the fre que nc y of YoungFitc h’ s m igra ine s or he r c la i m e d a lle rgy to flore sc e nt light, give

n the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t he r c om pla ints we re not fully

c re dible . B e c a

use the ALJ ga

ve littlewe ight to Dr. O’ C onne ll’ s a nd Dr. Sprung’ s opinions, the hy pothe tic a l pe rm issibly

om itte d the m e nta l a

nd phy s ic a l lim ita

tions re fle c te d in the ir re ports, whic h we re othe rwise unsupporte d by the re c o rd. Se e Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th C ir. 2005). AFFIRM E D.