N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANDREA L. GAR

NER , 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 n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-35055 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-06058-M AT
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 M ary Alic e The ile r, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 7, 2020 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd TUNHEIM , * ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED FEB 11 2020 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 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 ora l a

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

* ** The Honora

ble John R . Tunhe im , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M i nne sota , sitting by de signa tion.Andre a Ga rne r a ppe a l s the de nia l of he r a

pplic ation for Soc ia l Se c urity disa bility be ne fits. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd a ffirm
. W e “ re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision susta ining the[Adm i nistra

tive La w Judge ’ s (“ ALJ” )] de nia l of soc i a l se c urity be ne fits de novo a nd c an re ve rse only

if the A LJ’ s findings a

re ba se d on le ga l e rror or a re not supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e in the re c ord.” Attmore v . C olv i n , 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th C ir. 2016).

“ Substa ntia l e vide nc e m e ans m ore tha n a m e re sc intilla , but le ss tha n a pre p onde ranc e . It m e ans suc h re le va nt e vide nc e a s a

re a sona ble m ind m ight a c c e pt
a s a d e quate to support a

c onc l u sion.” Re v e l

s v . Be rry h ill , 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th C ir. 2017) (quoting De

srosie r s v . Se c 'y of He alth &Human Se rv s. , 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th C i r. 1988)). Additiona lly , we “ m ay

not re ve rse an ALJ’ s de c i sion on
a c c ount of a ha

rm le ss e rror.” Buc k

v . Be rry hill , 869 F.3d 1040, 1048 (9th C ir. 2017). 1. The ALJ did not err in e va luating them e dic a l e vide n c e . C o ntra ry to Garne r’ s a sse rtions, there c o rd shows tha t the ALJ c onside re d the lim ita tions spe c ifie d in Dr. W inga

te ’ s te s tim ony

whe n de te rm ining Ga

rne r’ s R e sidua l Func tiona l C a

p a c ity (“ R FC ” ). M ore ove r, e v e n a ssum ing the ALJ’ s de te rm ination
wa s in e rror, Ga

rne r ha s not c arrie d he r burde n to show tha t suc h e rror wa s ha rm ful. Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th C ir. 2012).
2Inde e d , Ga

rne r ha s fa ile d to show how Dr. Winga te ’ s opinion is inc onsiste n t with the A LJ’ s R

FC a sse ssm e nt or should le a d to a diffe re nt re sult tha

n tha t re a c he d by the A LJ. Nor did the ALJ e rr in finding M s . Eva ns’ s sta te m e nt unpe rsua sive
. Although M s. Eva

ns, a m e nta l he a lth c ounse l or, wa s not c o nside re d a n

“ [a ] c c e pta

ble m e dic a l sourc e [] ” pursua nt to there le va

nt re g ulations, 1 se e Molina , 674 F.3d a

t 1111 (first al te ra tion in origina l), the “ A LJ [c ould] give le ss de fe re nc e to ‘ othe r sourc e s’ only

if the ALJ give s re a sons ge rm ane to e a c h witne ss for doing so,” Re v e ls , 874 F.3d a

t 655
. The distric t c ourt ga ve ge rm ane re a sons for disc ounting M s. Eva

ns’ s sta te m e nt. For e xam

ple , the distric t c ourt found M s. Eva ns’ s sta te m e n ts unc onvinc ing, be c a use the y we re una c c om

p anie d by tre atm e nt

1 At the tim e the ALJ issue d a de c ision in Ga

rne r’ s c a se , the re gula

tions distinguishe d

be twe e n “ [a ] c c e pta

ble m e dic a l sourc e s” and “ [o] t he r sourc e s .” 20 C .F.R . § 404.1513 (2016). The re le va nt provisions we

re re sc inde d in 2017. Se e R e visions to R

ule s R e ga rding theEva luation of M e dic a l Evide nc e , 82 Fe d. R e g. 5,844, 5,865 (Ja

n . 18, 2017). All re fe re n c e s to theSoc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion re gula tions he re in a

re to the 2016 re gula

tions unle ss othe rwise note d.
3note s. 2 Additionally , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t the
ove ra l l re c ord did not docum e nt de pre ssion a n d a nxie ty to the de gre e de sc ribe d by M s. Eva ns. Thus, be c a

use the ALJ ga

v e ge rm a ne re a sons for finding M s. Eva ns’ s sta te m e nt unpe rsua sive , we a ffirm this de te rm i nation. Fina lly , the ALJ did not err in giving gre at we ight to the opinion of the

none xam ining e xpe rts. Ga

rne r argue s tha

t the opinions of the se e xpe rts we re untim e ly , be c a use the y subm itte d the ir re vie ws m ore tha n a y e ar be fore the he aring da te , thus fa iling to a c c o unt for e vide nc e post-da ting the ir opinions. The

re fore , Ga

rne r posits that the opinions of the

non-e xam ining e xpe rts should be disc re dite d, be c a

use the y c ould not ha

ve c onside re d “ a ll of the pe rtine nt e vide nc e in [he r] c la im .” 20 C .F.R
. § 404.1527(c )(3). Howe ve r, the re is a lwa y s som e tim e la

pse be twe e n a c onsulta nt’ s re port a

nd the ALJ he aring a

nd de c ision. TheSoc ia l Se c urity
re gula tions im p ose no limi t on suc h a

ga p in tim e . He re , at

the tim e the none xam ining e xpe rts issue d the ir opinions, the y ha d c onside re d a ll the e v ide nc e

2 C ontra ry to Ga rne r’ s argum e nts, theALJ ha d no a ffirm ative duty to subpoe na M s. Eva ns’ s tre at m e nt note s . 20 C .F.R . § 404.950(d)(1) (noting tha t a n ALJ “ may , on his or he r own initia tive or at the re que st of a

pa rty , issue subpoe na s” for inform ation tha t would furthe r de ve lop the re c ord (e m pha s is a dde d)). In fa c t, the re c o rd m ak e s c l e ar that the ALJ sa t isfie d he r duty

to m ake “ e v e ry re a sona ble e ffort to he lp [Ga

rne r] ge t m e dic a l re ports from [he r] own m e dic a l sourc e s,” id. at § 404.1512(b)(1), when she m a de m u ltiplere que sts for re c o rds from

M s . Eva ns. 4be fore the m , thus sa tisfy ing the re quire m e nts se t forth in 20 C .F.R
. § 404.1527(c )(3). To be sure , suc h a

substa ntia l de la y would undoubte dly be signific a nt if, in the i nte rim , the ALJ re c e ive d a dditiona l m e dic a l e vide n c e tha t in he r opinion m ay c ha nge the e xpe rt’ s finding. Se e SSR 96-6p, 1996 W

L 374180, a

t *3–4 (July

2, 1996). Howe ve r, Ga

rne r give s no e xpla

nation a s to why

the ga p in tim e is signific ant a

nd points to no subse que ntly obta ine d e vide nc e tha

t c ontra d ic ts the
e xpe rts’ o pinions. Thus, e ve n a ssum ing the ALJ did e rr in a sc ribing gre at we ight to the opinions of the

non-e xam ining e xpe rts, Ga rne r’ s a rgum e nts still fail be c a

use she did not e xpla in why

suc h e rror wa s ha

rm ful. Se e Molina , 647 F.3d a t 1111. 2. The ALJ’ s de c ision to discre dit Ga rne r’ s te stim ony

is supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e . “ The ALJ is re sponsiblefor de te rm i ning c re d ibility and
re solving c onflic ts in m e dic a l te stim ony . ” Magallane s v . Bow e n , 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th C i r. 1989). In orde r to disc re dit a c la i m ant’ s te stim ony , the ALJ m ust provide spe c ific , c oge nt re a s ons for disc re diting it. Se e Gre ge r v . Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th C ir. 2006). Though the ALJ ide ntifie d no le ss tha n five spe c ific
re a s ons for re

je c t ing Ga

rne r’ s te stim ony , Ga

rne r m a inta ins tha

t none of the se re a s ons a re c onvinc ing. Howe ve r, the ALJ prope rly ide ntifie d in its a

n a l y s is pre c ise ly “ what te stim ony is not c re dible and wha t e vide nc e unde rm ine s the
5c la im ant’ s c o m pla ints.” Be rry

v . Astrue , 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th C ir. 2010). Furthe rm ore , the re a sons provide d by the ALJ a

re supporte d by

substa ntia l
e vide nc e in the re c ord. At bottom , be c a use the ALJ provide d suffic ie nt re a soning for re je c ting Ga

rne r’ s te stim ony , we do not se c o nd-gue ss its de te rm ination. Rollins v . Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 856–57 (9th C i r. 2001). 3. The ALJ’ s disc ounting of la y e vide nc e from

Shan e He dbe rg, Ga

rne r’ s signific ant othe r, is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . “ The ALJ m ust c onside r c om pe te nt la y te stim o ny

but in re je c t ing suc h e vide nc e , [s] he ne e d only provide
re a s ons for doing so tha

t are ‘ ge rm ane to [the ] witne ss.’ ” C armic k le v . C omm’r Soc ial Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting G re ge r , 464 F.3d
at 972). TheALJ ha d

a de quate ba se s for finding He dbe rg’ s te stim ony not c re dible
. For e xam ple , though He dbe rg sta

te d tha t Ga rne r c ould not lift m

ore tha n five pounds, them e dic a l e vide nc e sugge sts tha t Ga rne r wa s only

lim ite d to lifting not
m ore tha n twe nty pounds oc c a siona lly

or te n pounds fre que ntly
. B e c a use the ALJ’ s de te rm ination is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e in the re c ord, we a ffirm
. 4. The ALJ a lso prope rly de te rm ine d Ga

rne r’ s R FC . Ga rne r argue s tha

t the ALJ’ s R FC a sse ssm e nt “ is le ga lly e rrone ous a

nd not supporte d by

substa n tia l
e vide nc e .” Howe ve r, Garne r’ s a rgum e nts on this point do not diffe r from those we re je c te d a bove . B e c a

use (a s shown a

bove ) the ALJ did not err in its we ighing of
6the m e dic a l e vide nc e an d Ga rne r fa ils to show spe c ific a l ly how the R

FC is inc o nsiste nt with the m e d i c a l re c ord, the ALJ’ s de te rm ination is a ffirm e d. 5. Garne r’ s a

rgum e nts tha

t the ALJ’ s ste p five ana ly sis wa s e rrone ous a re a lso
una va iling. First, Ga

rne r’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony ha s no e vide ntia ry va l ue fa lls short, be c a

use (a s de te rm ine d

a bove ) the ALJ’ s R

FC de te rm i nation (upon which the hy pothe tic a l pose d to thevoc ationa l e xpe rt wa s ba se d) is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se c ond, e ve n a ssum ing Ga rne r c orre c tly a s se rts tha

t se ve ra l of the jobs liste d by the voc ationa l e xpe rt we re outside he r re a soning lim

i tations (a s de ta ile d in theR FC ), Garne r c o nc e de s tha t the re is a

t le a st one job tha

t sa tisfie s the re a soning le ve l one re quire m e nts— that of a n optic a l goods fina l a sse m

b le r (DOT 713.687-018). And be c a use the re are at le a st 30,000 of the se jobs na

tiona lly , the sta

tutory sta nda rd is m e t. Se e Gutie r

re z v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 740 F.3d 519, 528 (9th C ir. 2014) (noting tha t ha ving 25,000 jobs in the
nationa l e c o nom

y m e t the sta

t utory sta nda rd). Ga rne r the re fore doe s not qua lify for disa bility
. AFFIRM E D.

7