N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANTONIO L. SPOR TSM AN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-36063 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01616-JLR
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 Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2015 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS and TALLM AN, C i rc uit Judge s a nd LEFKOW , * ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JAN 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent ex cept as provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See F e d. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable J oan Humphrey L efkow, Senior United States District J udg e for the Northern District of I llinois, sitting by desig n ation.Antonio Sportsman 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 fina l de c ision to deny his a pplic ation for Disa bility Insura nc e B e ne fits a

n d Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc om e unde r Title s II
and XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm
. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s a

nd proc e d ura l history

of this
c a se , we will disc uss the m only a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. In a ddition, in light of Sportsm

an’ s re que st tha

t the e xc e rpts of re c ord be se a l e d, our disposition om

its fa c ts tha

t m ight qua lify

for se a ling a

nd foc use s on the le ga l
ana ly sis. The c ourt re vie w s de novo a distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing a n Adm inistra

tive La w Judge ’ s (“ A LJ” ) de nia l of Soc ia l Se c urity be ne fits. Hill v
. Astrue , 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th C ir. 2012). The c ourt m ay se t a s ide the ALJ’ s de c ision to deny

be ne fits “ only

if it is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e or is ba se d on le ga l e rror.” Se e Tre ic hle r v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Andre w s v . Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 1995)). The ALJ a

pplie s a five -ste p se que ntia l a

na ly s is to de te rm ine whe the r an a pplic ant is disa

b l e d. 20 C
. F.R . §§ 404.1520(a ), 416.920(a). At ste p four, the ALJ found tha t the re wa s substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporting re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity
. 2At ste p five , the ALJ found tha t a lthough Sportsman c annot pe rform his pa st
re le va nt work, he is not disa

ble d be c a use the re are jobs tha

t Sportsm an c an pe rform that e xist in signific a

nt num b e rs in the nationa l e c onom y . Sportsm an a

rgue s tha t the A LJ e rre d by

(1) im prope rly e v a luating his me d ic a l e vide nc e , c re d ibility , a nd la y -witne ss e vide nc e whe n de te rm ining thephy s ic a l a nd m e n t a l lim ita

tions for his RFC ; (2) re ly ing on voc a tiona l e xpe rt te stim o ny that is ba se d on a hy pothe tic a l tha

t doe s not inc l ude a ll of his lim ita tions; a nd (3) fa iling to re m and in light of ne w e vide nc e subm itte d to the Appe a ls C ounc il. 1. M e dic a l E vide nc e Sportsm an first a

rgue s tha t the ALJ e rre d in e va l uating his R FC by giving only m inim a l e vide n tia

ry w e ight to the

opinions of his tre ating phy sic ia ns. An ALJ m ay re ly on the m e dic a l opinion of a non-tre ating doc tor inste a d of the
c ontra ry opinion of a

tre a ting doc tor only

if he provide s “ spe c ific and le gitim ate ”
re a s ons supporte d by

substa ntia l e v ide nc e in the re c ord. Leste r v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C ir. 1995). TheALJ throughly sum m ariz e d the fa c ts a

nd c onflic ting
e vide nc e re ga

rding Sportsm an’ s phy sic a l lim ita tions, inc luding a

n e x te nsive
re vie w of the m e dic a l opinions of Sportsm an’ s tre ating phy sic ia

ns, sta te d his inte rpre tation of thefa c ts a nd c onflic ting e vide nc e , and m a de findings a c c ordingly
. Se e M agallane s v . Bow e n , 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th C ir. 1989)
. W e find tha t the
3ALJ did not err in a ssigning substa ntia l we ight to the sta

te a ge nc y m e d ic a l
c onsulta nt, whose opinion re lie d on a nd wa s c onsiste nt with the m e dic a l e vide nc e of re c ord. S

e e Tonape t

y an v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th C i r. 2001) (finding that the opinion of a

non-e xam ining m e d ic a l sourc e “ m ay c onstitute

substa ntia l
e vide nc e whe n it is c o n siste n t with other inde pe nde nt e v ide nc e in the re c ord” ). Sportsm an a lso c o nte nds tha t the ALJ e rre d in c iting to one tre ating phy sic ia n’ s M a rc h 2007 opinion be c a

use the tre at ing phy sic ia

n’ s opinion doe s not
a c c ount for the pe riod be twe e n 2008 a nd 2011. Furthe r, Sportsm an a rgue s tha t the ALJ e rre d in a c c ording thea sse ssm e nt of sta te a g e nc y doc tors substa

ntia l we ight be c a use the y did not re v ie w e vide nc e be y ond M ay 2010. The ALJ, howe v e r, re vie we d Sportsm an’ s e ntire m e dic a l history from 2006 to 2011 a

nd c am e to a
ra tiona l c onc lusion re ga

rding Sportsm an’ s lim ita

tions. M ore ove r, the ALJ note d that his phy sic a l R

FC a sse ssm e nt wa s m ore re stric tive tha n the one sta

te d in the tre a ting phy sic i a

n’ s m e dic a l opinion. W ith re spe c t to Sportsm a n’ s m e nta l R

FC , the ALJ a ssigne d his tre ating psy c hologist’ s opinion lim ite d we ight be c a

u se he found tha

t the tre at ing psy c hologist’ s c onc lusion wa s “ inc onsiste nt with his e xam inat ion findings a nd the
c la im ant’ s othe r a

b i litie s.” S

e e Bay liss v
. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005). M ore ove r, the ALJ note d inc onsiste nc y be twe n the globa l a sse ssm e nt of
4func tioning (“ G AF” ) sc ore de te rm ine d by Sportsm a

n ’ s tre ating psy c hologist in Fe brua ry 2010 a nd the GAF sc ore de t e rm ine d by Sportsm an’ s m e nta l -he a lth
c ounse lor in August 2010. Finding tha t the sta te a ge n c y non-e xam ining phy sic ia ns’ a sse s sm e n t s we re c onsiste nt with the m e d ic a l e vide nc e a s a

whole , the ALJ a ssigne d the sta

te a ge nc y non-e xam ining phy sic ia

ns’ opinions gre ate r we ight. That the sta

te a ge nc y psy c hologic a l c onsulta

nts did not revie w m e n ta l he a lth findings be y ond M arc h 2010 through M a rc h 2011 is not a

n e rror. It is e v ide nt tha

t the A LJ re vie we d

the e ntire re c ord a

nd c onc lude d , a s we do, tha t the late r re c ords
are c onsiste nt with the

m e dic a l e vide nc e a s a

whole
. Sinc e the ALJ provide d

spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l re c o rd e vide nc e for a ssigning lim ite d we ight to the

tre ating psy c hologist’ s opinion, the ALJ did not err in a ssigning gre ate r we ight to the sta te
a ge nc y non-e xam ining, non-tre a ting psy c hologic a l c o nsulta n ts. Se e Robe rts v . Shalala , 66 F.3d 179, 184 (9th C ir. 1995) (upholding ALJ’ s de c ision to re je c t
e xam ining psy c h ologist’ s func tiona l a sse ssm e nt tha t c o nflic te d with his own writte n re port a nd te st re sults). M ore ove r, it is not c le ar tha t ha d the tre ating psy c hologist’ s opinion be e n a c c e pte d in full, a finding of disa

b ility would
ne c e ssa rily follow. 2. Spor tsm an’s Cr e dibility
5Sportsm an a lso c h a lle nge s the ALJ’ s a d ve rse c re dibility finding. W he n, a s in this c a se , a

c la im an t pre se nts obje c tive m e dic a l e vide n c e of an unde rly ing im pa irm e nt a

nd the re is no e vide nc e of m a linge ring, the ALJ m ay re je c t the
c la im ant’ s te stim ony

a bout these v e rity

of his sy m ptom s only by

offe ring spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons for doing so. Ghanim v . C olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th C ir. 2014). In e va l uating a c la i m ant’ s te stim ony , the ALJ use s ordina ry te c hnique s of c re d ibility

e v a luation, suc h a s inc onsiste nc ie s in the c la im a n t ’ s te stim ony or be twe e n the te s tim ony and the c la im ant’ s c onduc t, a nd whe t he r the
c la im ant e nga ge s in da ily a c tivitie s inc onsiste nt with the a lle ge d sy

m ptom s. Orn v
. Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 636 (9th C ir. 2007). The ALJ pre se nte d spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons for re je c ting Sportsm an’ s te s tim ony

re ga rding the se v e rity

of his sy m ptom s. The ALJ pointe d out inc onsiste nc ie s in Sportsm an’ s te stim ony , da i ly a c t ivitie s, a

n d found tha

t the
se ve rity of Sportsm an ’ s sy

m ptom s wa s unsupporte d by obje c tive m e dic a l
e vide nc e . Se e C

armic k lev . C omm’r, Soc ial Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ C ontra dic t ion with the m e d i c 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 .” ). B e c a use the ALJ c onside re d the c la im ant’ s te stim ony to be inc onsiste nt with his c onduc t , da ily a c t ivitie s, a

nd the m e dic a l
e vide nc e , the ALJ did not err in disc ounting Sportsma n ’ s c re dibility
. 63. L ay -W i tne s s T e stim ony

Sportsm an a lso c o nte nds tha t the ALJ e rre d in a ffording Sportsm an’ s wife ’ s la y -witne ss te stim ony

littlewe ight. “ A n ALJ ne e d only give ge rm ane re a sons for disc re diting the

te s tim ony

of la y witne sse s.” Bay liss , 427 F.3d a t 1218. He re , the ALJ provide d two ge rm ane re a s ons: the te s tim ony la c ke d spe c ific ity

and wa s not supporte d by the m e d ic a l re c o rd. Se e id. (holding tha t “ [i] nc o nsiste nc y with
m e dic a l e vide nc e is [a

ge rm ane ] re a son” for re

je c ting la y te s tim ony ). The re fore , the A LJ prope rly

disc re dite d the la

y -witne ss te stim ony . 4. V oc ational E x pe r t T e stim ony Sportsm an a lso c o nte nds tha t the ALJ e rre d by

re ly ing on voc ationa l-e xpe rt te stim ony ba se d on a hy

pothe tic a l tha

t doe s not inc lude a ll of Sportsm an’ s lim ita tions. TheALJ is e ntitle d to re ly on a voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony if “ [t] he hy pothe t ic a l tha

t the ALJ pose d to the [voc ationa l e xpe rt] c onta ine d a ll of the lim ita tions tha t the A L J found c re dible and supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord.” Id. at 1217. Thehy pothe tic a l pre se n te d in this c a se inc lude d a ll lim ita tions supporte d by

the re c ord. Thus, the

voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s re s ponse wa s prope rly use d a s e vide nc e to support the finding tha t Sportsm an is not disa

ble d. 5. Re m and

7La stly , Sportsm a n c onte nds tha

t the C om m issione r e rre d in fa iling to re m and the c a se to the ALJ a fte r he subm itte d to the Appe a ls C o unc i l a le tte r from

his wife de sc ribing in gre a te r de ta il his phy sic a l a nd m e nta l lim ita

tions. De spite the le tte r subm itte d to the Appe a ls C ounc il, the ALJ’ s de c ision wa s supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e . As disc usse d supra , the ALJ c ite d e vide nc e throughout the re c ord tha

t sugge s te d Sportsm an wa s le ss limite d tha n his wife c l a im e d in he r le tte r. B e c a use the ALJ’ s e va luation c o nta i ne d substa ntia l e vide nc e for re

je c ting the i nform a tion in the

le tte r, whic h wa s a lso le ss pe rsua sive be c a use it wa s file d
a fte r the de nia l of Sportsm an’ s disa bility be ne fits, re m and is unwa rrante d
. Se e W e e tman v . Sullivan , 877 F.2d 20, 23 (9th C ir. 1989). AFFIRM E D
.

8