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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 17-35199 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-00545-DW C
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 David W . C hriste l , M a gistra te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 16, 2019 **
B e fore TR OTT, SILVER M AN, a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s : Joe lle Tha

y e r a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt orde r a ffirm ing the C om m i ssione r’ s de nia l of a

pplic ations for disa

bility be n e fits. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt orde r de



# F IL ED
JAN 18 2019 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).novo a

nd the a g e nc y

de c ision for le ga l e rror and substa ntia l e vide nc e . Garrison v

. C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1009-10 (9th C ir. 2014). W e a ffirm
. The ALJ ga

ve spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e for giving le ss we ight to some of the opinions of Anse l e m Parlatore , Ph.D., who e x am ine d Tha y e r for state be ne fits. W

idmark v . Barnhart , 454 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (9th C ir. 2006) (re quiring spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons to give le ss we ight to c ontrove rte d opinions). The re c ord supports the

ALJ’ s findings tha

t the o pinions we re inte rna lly inc onsiste nt, without a

ny e xpla nation for the inc o nsiste nc i e s; inc o n siste nt with c linic a l obse rvations a nd te sting; inc o nsiste nt with tre atm e nt re c o rds a

nd the re c ord a s a

whole ; a nd spe c ific a lly

pre m i se d on Tha y e r’ s sta te m e nts, whic h

the ALJ found to be

unre lia ble and inc onsiste nt with othe r stat e m e nts Tha

y e r m a d e in the re c ord. An ALJ m ay give le ss we ight to opinions tha

t a re brie f, c o nc lusory

and ina de quate ly

supporte d by

c linic a l findings
or are inc onsiste nt with e xam ination or tre atm e nt re c ords. Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008); Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216-17 (9th C ir. 2005); Thomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th C i r. 2002). Also, a n ALJ m ay give le ss we ight to a

m e nta l he a lth opinion whe n it re l ie s “ m o re he avily ”
on se lf-re ports tha

n on c l inic a l obse rvations, pa rtic ula rly whe n the ALJ prope rly

2disc ounts thec la im ant’ s te stim ony a s not c re dible
. B uc k

v . Be r ry hill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th C ir. 2017). The ALJ a lso ga

ve spe c ific and le g itim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e for giving le ss we ight to the opinions of Da

v id M y e rs, Ph.D., 1 who
re vie we d the re c ord a

nd te stifie d at the he aring. Dr. M y e rs re l ie d on the prope rly disc ounte d, unsupporte d opinions of Dr. Pa rlatore . In a ddition, a s the ALJ found, Dr. M e y e rs c onc e de d tha

t his opinions we

re inc onsiste nt with Tha

y e r’ s pa st work history
. W e de c line to a ddre ss Tha y e r’ s c ha lle nge to the ALJ’ s tre at m e nt of othe r
re vie wing opinions. Tha

y e r wa ive d the argum e nt by not ra i sing it to the

distric t
c ourt a nd wa ive d

any argum e nts re ga

rding e x c e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s by not
a ddre s sing wa i ve r in he r ope ning brie f. Gre ge r v . Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th C ir. 2006); Bray

v . C o m m’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 554 F.3d 1219, 1226 n.7 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 Dr. M y e rs’ s na

m e is spe lle d in va

rious wa y s throughout the

re c ord. “ David A. M y e rs, Ph.D.” is how it a ppe ars in his re sum e .

3