N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KENWYN B O ND,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 20-35496 D.C . No. 1:19-c v-01128-B R
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 Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M arc h 3, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, TALLMAN, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . B ond a rgue s tha t the Adm inistra

tive La w Judge (ALJ) e rre d by

re je c ting he r te stim ony a s to he r pa in a

nd the e xte nt of he r lim ita tions. TheALJ disc o unte d B ond’ s sta

te m e nts a bout theinte nsity , pe rsiste nc e , a nd limiting e ffe c ts of he r 

# FIL ED MAR 5 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 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 oral a

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

ptom s. Spe c ific a l ly , while the ALJ found tha t B ond’ s m e dic a lly

de te rm ina

ble im pa irm e nts c ould re a s ona

bly be e xpe c te d to c a

u se the a lle ge d sy

m ptom s, B ond’ s sta te m e nts c onc e rning theinte nsity , pe rsiste nc e and limiting e ffe c ts of those sym ptom s we re inc onsiste nt with the m e dic a l e vide nc e and othe r e vide nc e in the
re c o rd. “ C ontra dic t ion with the m e d ic a l re c ord is a suffic ie nt ba sis for re je c ting the c la i m ant’ s subje c tive te stim ony .” C armic k lev . C o mm’r , 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th C ir. 2008) (c iting J

ohnson v . Shalala , 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th C i r. 1995)). He re , for e xam

ple , B ond c la im e d tha

t she ne e de d to e l e vate he r le gs for five to six hours a d ay

to re lie ve swe lling. Them e dic a l re c ord, howe ve r, c onsiste ntly showe d B ond ha d no c y anosis, c lubbing, or e de m a . The re fore , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the

ALJ’ s c re dibility

finding. S

e e Thomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ If the ALJ’ s c re dibility finding is supporte d by

substa ntia l
e vide nc e in the re c ord, we m ay not e nga g e in se c ond-gue ssing.” ).

B ond a lso a

rgue s tha t the ALJ im

prope rly a ddre sse d he r son’ s witne ss sta te m e nt a bout thee xte nt of he r lim i tations. TheALJ ga ve the la y witne ss sta te m e nt “ som e we ight” be c a use it wa s ge ne ra l ly

c o nsiste nt with B ond’ s te stim ony , whic h he ha d a lre a dy disc ounte d due to c ontra dic tion with the m e dic a l
re c o rd. An ALJ c an disc ount a la y witne ss sta

te m e nt, so long a s he give s a
2ge rm ane re a son. Se e Stout v . C omm’r , 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th C ir. 2006)
. The
c ontra dic tion with the m e d ic a l e vide nc e wa s a ge rm a n e re a son to disc o unt the la y witne s s sta

te m e nt.

B ond c la im s tha

t the ALJ e rre d by

re je c ting theopinions of her nurse pra c titione r. The ALJ ga ve “ som e we ight” to the nurse ’ s opinion be c a u se it wa s inc o nsiste nt with the e va luations of B ond’ s m e dic a l doc tors, whic h indic ate d tha t the n urse ’ s opinion wa s la

rge ly ba se d on unre lia

ble subje c tive re porting by B ond. Unde r the re gula

tions in plac e at the tim e B ond file d for be ne fits, a nurse pra c titione r’ s opinion wa s c at e goriz e d unde r “ othe r sourc e s.” 20 C .F.R
. §§ 416.913(d), 404.1513(d), supe rse de d by re v ise d re gulation in 2017 . An ALJ
c an disc ount “ othe r sourc e s” if he give s a ge rm ane re a son for doing so. Britton v
. C olv in , 787 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th C ir. 2015) (pe r c uriam ). C ontra dic tion with a doc tor’ s opinion is a

ge rm ane re a son for disc ounting a nurse pra c titione r’ s opinion. Id. The re fore , the ALJ did not err.

B ond furthe r c l a im s tha

t the ALJ fa ile d to prope rly a ddre ss the opining of Dr. Grant a

nd Dr. Zie gle r that B ond should a void re pe titiveuse of he r le ft a rm and ha nd, a nd tha t she would be ne fit from

a c tivity m odific ation. To the

c o ntra ry , the
3ALJ did c onside r the doc tors’ e va luations. He wa s not re quire d to inc lude the ir

opining in his re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity de te rm ination, howe ve r, be c a use nowhe re did e ithe r doc tor indic ate tha t B ond wa s “ inc a

pa ble of working e

x c e pt unde r [the ir] re c om

m e n de d c o n ditions.” Vale ntine v . C omm’r , 574 F.3d 685, 691 (9th C ir. 2009). The re fore , the ALJ did not err in this re ga rd e ithe r.

Fina lly , B ond c la im s tha

t the ALJ e rre d in fa iling to inc lude any lim ita tions in soc ia l func tioning or in c o n c e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , a nd pa c e in his re s idua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity de te rm ination. Spe c i fic a l ly , B ond points to the opinion of Dr. Shie lds, who opine d a

bout B ond’ s bouts of pa

nic , he r avoida

nt be havior, a

nd he r trouble de a ling with stre s s. The ALJ only gave “ som e we ight” to Dr. Shie lds’ s opinion be c a

use his findings we

re inc onsiste nt with Dr. Shie ld’ s own m e nta l sta tus
e xam ination a

nd the m e dic a l e v ide nc e in the re c ord. A doc tor’ s opinion may be disc ounte d if it c onflic t s with his c linic a l note s and obse rvations. Bay liss v
. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005). The re fore , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports disc o unting Dr. Shie lds’ s opinion. AFFIRM E D.

4