N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JEFFER Y J. HAR R IS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15053 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-00743-DTF
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na D. Thom a s Fe rraro, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 22, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s . Je ffe ry J. Ha rris a ppe a ls from

a de c ision of a

m a gistra te judge upholding the de te rm i nations of theSoc ia l Se c urity Appe a ls C o unc i l (“ the a g e nc y ” ) that Ha rris
wa s, for the purpose s of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t , “ n ot disa ble d” and c a

pa ble of 

# FIL E D AUG 15 2014 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).pe rform i ng m e d ium e xe rtiona l work, a

nd dismissing Ha

rris’ s a ppe a l for Soc ia l Se c urity and disa bility insura

n c e be ne fits. W e a ffirm

the de c ision of them a gistra te judge
. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts, we do not re vie w the m he re . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t Ha rris wa s not disa ble d. The re c ord, c onside re d a s a whole , Ry a n v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th C ir. 2008), e s ta blishe s tha

t Ha rris c ontinue d to work, obtain de gre e s, a nd be a c tive both phy sic a lly and in his c om

m unity . The re c ord doe s not support thec la im that the re wa s a c linic a l ba sis for thesy

m ptom s Ha rris a lle ge d. No c l inic a l findings supporte d Ha rris’ s re porte d sy

m ptom s; dia gnostic te sts we re ne gative ; a

n d e xam inations we re unre m arka ble
. Ha rris’ s sta te m e nts to va

rious doc tors we re inc o nsiste nt, indic ating a la c k of c re d ibility
. Se e Soc ia l Se c urity R uling 96-7p, 1996 W

L 374186, a

t **5–6. Harris suffe re d no dueproc e ss viola tion. Ha rris wa s give n

a fa ir he aring, a

nd the re c ord ste m

m ing from the num e rous proc e e dings is substa ntia l . Ne ithe r the Appe a ls C ounc il nor the m a gistra te judge viola

te d Ha rris’ s due proc e ss rights by fa iling to give

m ore e xplic it tre atm e nt to c e rta in of his a rgum e nts. The re is no
re quire m e nt tha

t the Appe a ls C ounc il a ffirm at ive ly re spond to e a c h a sse rte d
argum e nt, se e 20 C .F.R . § 404.966–982, but in a ny e ve nt , the Appe a ls C ounc il note d tha t it ha d c o nside re d Ha

rris’ s brie f, and we “ ge n e ra lly ta ke a lowe r tribuna l
at its word when it de c l are s tha t it ha s c onside re d a

m atte r.” Hac k

e tt v . Barnhart ,395 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th C i r. 2005). W e se e no re a s on to do otherwise he re . For

sim ila r re a s ons, the re wa s no dueproc e ss viola tion in the

distric t c ourt; the
m a gistra te judge c onside re d e a c h of the argum e nts brie fe d substa ntive ly by Ha rris. Fina lly , the se c ond Administra tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) did not viola te the Appe a ls C ounc il’ s Fe brua

ry 2010 orde r be c a

use the ALJ unde rtook the ta s ks dire c te d by the C ounc il. The a ge n c y

like wise did not e rr in its e va luation of m e dic a l e vide nc e . The
a ge nc y artic ulate d “ spe c i fic and le gitim ate re a sons” for disc ounting the opinion of Dr. Lindstrom , whic h wa s c ontra dic te d by thre e othe r doc tors a

nd not supporte d by
any c linic a l findings or diagnostic te sting. Bray v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin ., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 n.8 (9th C ir. 2009). 1 The a ge nc y re a sona bly re lie d on the te stim ony of Dr. Ge rbe r. The argum e nt tha t Dr. Ge rbe r re fuse d to c o nside r c e rta in
non-m e dic a l e v i de nc e is c ontra d ic te d by the re c ord, and it wa s prope r for Dr. Ge rbe r to re ly

prim a rily on dia gnostic te st re s ults. The a ge nc y gave suffic ie ntly

“ ge rm an e ” re a sons for disc ounting the sta te m e nts of va

rious la y witne sse s be c a

use

1 The a ge nc y

wa s not re quire d to spe c ific a lly re fe re n c e e a c h fa c tor liste d in 20 C
. F.R . § 404.1527(c ). S e e Soc ia l Se c urity

R uling 06-03p, 2006 W

L 2329939, a

t *5 (noting tha

t “ [n] o t e ve ry fa c tor for we ighing opinion e vide nc e will a

p ply in e ve ry c a se .” ). Nor wa s the a ge n c y re quire d to re -c onta c t Dr. Lindstrom , sinc e the e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to m ake a de te rm ination a s to disa

bility . 20 C .F.R
. § 404.1520b(c ); Mc

Le o d v . Astrue , 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th C i r. 2011) (noting tha t “ [r] e j e c tion of thetre ating phy sic ia n’ s opinion . . . doe s not by itse lf trigge r a

duty to c o nta c t the phy sic i an for m ore e xpla nation.” ).the y

we re inc onsiste nt with the re c ord a n d did not support the

fre que nc y

of
e pisode s Ha

rris a lle ge d he e xpe rie nc e d. Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th C ir. 2012) (noting tha t “ if the ALJ give s ge rm ane re a sons for re je c ting te stim ony by one witne ss, theALJ ne e d only point to those

re a sons whe n re

je c ting sim ila r te stim ony

by a diffe re nt witne ss.” ). Like wise , the a ge nc y wa s not re quire d to re ly on the te stim ony

of a voc ationa l e xpe rt who in turn re lie d on Ha rris’ s disc ounte d te stim ony . Id. ; Gre ge r v . Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th C ir. 2006) (noting tha

t the ALJ is “ fre e to a c c e pt or re je c t re stric tions in a

hy pothe tic a l que stion tha

t a re not supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e ” (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d)). Fina lly , the a ge n c y

re a s ona bly a sse sse d Ha

rris’ s m e nta l lim ita

tions whe n it found tha t Ha rris wa s c a

pa ble of unskille d work without ad ditiona l limita tions. The finding wa s c onsiste nt with te sting re sults a nd re c ord e vide nc e showing tha t Ha rris
wa s a ble to pe rform

a wide range of a c tivitie s . The a ge nc y wa s not re quire d to inc l ude a d ditiona l limita

t ions ba se d on Ha

rris’ s subje c tive c om

pla ints, whic h the
a ge nc y ha d de te rm ine d we re not c re dible . Nor wa s the re a re quire m e nt tha

t the
a ge nc y obta in a

n upda te d m e d ic a l opinion a

bout Ha rris’ s m e nta l he a lth. Soc ia l Se c urity R uling 96-6p, 1996 W

L 374180 a

t **3–4, re quire s upda

te d opinions only whe re the ALJ or the Appe a ls C ounc il be lie ve s tha t the e vide nc e sugge sts tha t a judge m e nt of e quiva le nc e m ight bere a sona ble or tha t ne wly -re c e ive d e vide nc em ight c ha

nge the a ge nc y

m e dic a l c onsulta

nt’ s opinion, a

nd ne ithe r c irc um sta

nc e wa s pre se nt he re . AFFIRM E D.