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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 16-35229 D.C . No. 6:15-c v-00038-JTJ
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na J ohn T. Johnston, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, TALLM AN, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Ke vin Loa de r a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm i ng the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion’ s de nia l of his a

pplic ation for disa

bility be ne fits. B e c a

use the fa c ts
are k nown to thepa

rtie s, we re pe at the m

only a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. I 

# FIL ED
JAN 24 2018 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 a dm inistra tive la w judge (ALJ) did not err in finding tha t Loa de r’ s de pre s sion wa s a

m e dic a lly

de te rm ina

b le but not “ s e ve re ” im

pa irm e nt a

t Ste p 2 of the five -ste p se que ntia l proc e d ure . Se ege ne rally 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1520, 416.920. B ut e ve n if tha

t de te rm i nation we re m a de in e rror, it would beha rm le ss, be c a

use Loa de r pre va ile d at Ste p 2— and his c a se proc e e de d to the re m a ining ste

ps— on the ba sis of othe r se ve re im

pa irm e nts. Onc e pa st Ste p 2, the ALJ wa s re quire d to
c onside r Loa d e r’ s de pre ssion a s a m e d ic a lly

de t e rm i na

ble im pa irm e nt, e v e n

if it
wa s not found to be

se v e re . 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1545(a )(2); 416.945(a)(2). Thus,
onc e Loa de r pre va ile d at

Ste p 2, it m a de no diffe re nc e for the ALJ’ s e nsuing
ana ly sis whe the r his m e dic a lly de te rm i na ble de pre ssion wa s pre viously c o n side re d

“ se ve re . ” Se e Buc k v . Be rry hill , 869 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th C ir. 2017). II The ALJ did e rr, howe v e r, by fa i ling to c o nside r the lim ita tions im pose d by Loa de r’ s de pre ssion whe n a sse ssing his re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (RFC ), and the re a fte r whe n e xam ining the voc ationa l e xpe rt. As sta te d, at Ste p 2, the ALJ found Loa de r’ s de pre ssion to be a “ m e dic a lly

de t e rm i na

ble m e nta l im

p a irm e nt.” The ALJ wa s the re fore re q uire d to c o nside r suc h im pa irm e nt in a sse ssing Loa de r’ s RFC . 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1545(a )(2); 416.945(a)(2); Buc k, 869 F.3d a t 1049. The ALJ fa ile d, howe ve r, e v e n to m e ntion Loa de r’ s de pre s sion or m e nta l im pa i rm e nts
2whe n a sse ssing his R FC , a nd the R FC itse lf sa

y s nothing a

t a ll a bout suc h im pa irm e nts or the ir e ffe c t s. Like wise , the ALJ fa ile d to m e ntion a

ny suc h im pa irm e nt in thehy

p othe tic a l que stions it pose d to the voc ationa l e xpe rt. W e c annot c o nc l ude tha

t the ALJ’ s fa ilure to c onside r Loa de r’ s m e nta l im pa irm e nts whe n a sse ssing his R FC or whe n que stioning the voc ationa l e xpe rt
wa s ha rm le ss. C f. Robbins v. Soc . Se c . Admin. , 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th C ir. 2006) (e rror is ha

rm le ss if it is “ c le ar from

the re c ord tha

t [the ] e rror wa s inc onse q

ue ntia l to the ultim ate nondisa

bility de te rm ination” (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)). Inde e d , at the he aring be fore the ALJ on Loa de r’ s first a pplic at ion for disa

bility be ne fits, the voc ationa l e xpe rt te stifie d tha t the a ddition of “m arke d

lim ita tions in the a bility to pe rsist, pa c e , or c onc e ntrat e throughout a n e i ght-hour da

y ” to Loa de r’ s phy sic a l im

pa irm e nts m ay hav e c ha

nge d the e xpe rt’ s opinion a s to the work tha t Loa de r c ould pe rform . Suc h lim ita t ions a re sim i la r to the m ild m e nta l lim ita tions tha t the A L J found to bea ssoc iat e d with Loa de r’ s de pre ssion, a nd thus
e xpre s s c onside rat ion of suc h im pa irm e nts m ay

have im pa c te d the ALJ’ s ultim ate disa bility de te rm ination. III The ALJ did not err in a sse ssing Loa de r’ s phy sic a l lim ita tions in the

R FC
and or in his e xam ination of thevoc at iona l e xpe rt. The ALJ’ s a sse ssm e nt of
3Loa de r’ s phy sic a l lim ita t ions is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord, inc l uding both me dic a l e vide n c e and e vide n c e re lat e d to Loa de r’ s a c tivitie s. A The ALJ’ s a dve rse a sse ssm e nt of Loa de r’ s c re dibility wa s supporte d by

“ spe c ific , c le a

r a nd c onvinc ing re a sons.” Tre v izo v . Be rry h ill , 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th C ir. 2017) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ). Inde e d , the ALJ c ite d
num e rous pie c e s of e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t c le a rly c ontra d ic t e d Loa d e r’ s te stim ony a s to thee xte nt of his im

pa irm e nts, inc luding obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e
suc h a s dia gnostic te st re sults, e vide nc e that Loa de r e xpe rie nc e d som e re lie f from
c onse rvative an d routinec are , and e vide nc e tha t Loa de r pa

rtic ipate d in va

rious
a c tivitie s tha

t c ontra dic te d his suppose d phy sic a l lim ita t ions. 1 Suc h c ontra dic tions
are s uffic ie nt to support the ALJ’ s c re dibility de te rm ination. Se e ge ne rally Ghanim v . C

olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1163–64 (9th C ir. 2014) (disc u ssing ALJ
c re d ibility

de te rm inat ions).

1 Loa de r’ s c o m

pla int tha t som e of the e ve nts c ite d by the ALJ oc c urre d be fore the a lle ge d onse t da te of his disa

bility is m ispla c e d. As theALJ e xpla ine d, Loa de r’ s a lle ge d

onse t da t e ha d “ no c linic a l signific a n c e , ” but wa s inste a d

sim ply the d ay a fte r Loa de r’ s prior a

pplic ation for be ne fits ba se d on thee xa c t sa m e a lle ge d disa

bilitie s wa s de nie d. It wa s thus Loa de r’ s burde n to show tha

t his c ondition had m at e ria lly worse ne d sinc e his pre vious c la im wa s de nie d
. Se eFair v . Bow e n , 885 F.2d 597, 600 (9th C ir. 1989). B e c a use e v ide nc e suc h a s dia gnostic im a ge s sugge ste d

tha t Loa de r’ s c ondition had not m ate ria lly worse ne d, Loa de r’ s prior a c tivitie s re m a ine d re le va nt to illustra

ting thee x te nt of his im

pa irm e nts. 4B

The ALJ like wise provide d spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons to re je c t Dr. M e y e r’ s a sse ssm e nt of Loa de r’ s phy sic a l lim ita tions. Se eBay l iss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005). Onc e a ga in, thosere a sons inc lude d se ve ra l
c ontra dic tions be twe e n Dr. M e y e r’ s opinion a s to Loa de r’ s phy sic a l c a pa bilitie s
and phy sic a l a c tivitie s tha t Loa de r a c tua lly

pe rform e d
. C Although the ALJ fa ile d e xplic itly to c o nside r and providege rm a n e re a sons for re je c ting e vide nc e from

e ve ry non-m e dic a l sourc e , suc h e vide nc e wa s m e re ly
c orroborative of the im

pa irm e nts de sc ribe d by

Loa de r and Dr. M e y e r. B e c a use the ALJ’ s we ll-supporte d re a s ons for re j e c ting Loa de r’ s a

nd Dr. M e y e r’ s te stim ony
a pply with e q ua l forc e to the te stim ony of the non-m e dic a l witne sse s , the ALJ’ s fa ilure e xplic itly

to c onside r the e vide nc e from e ve ry suc h witne ss wa s ha

rm le ss. Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1117–22 (9th C ir. 2012). IV For the fore going re a sons, thede c ision of thedistric t c ourt is AFFIRM E D in pa rt, RE V E R SE D in pa

rt, a nd this c a se is RE M ANDE D to the distric t c ourt with instruc tions to re m a

nd to theC om

m issione r for furthe r proc e e dings. On
re m and, the ALJ is dire c t e d to re -a sse ss Loa de r’ s R FC , inc luding a ll of Loa de r’ s
5re le va

nt m e dic a lly

de te rm i na

b l e im pa irm e nt s, both phy s ic a l a nd m e nta l, a

n d to re
a sse ss its Steps 4 a

nd 5 c onc lusions in light of the c om p le te R FC
. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l.

6Loade r v . Be rry hill , No. 16-35229

WATFORD , C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt: I would re ve rse a c ross the boa rd. I think the

ALJ e rre d in de t e rm i ning tha t M r. Loa de r’ s te stim ony

wa s not c re dible , and in giving no we ight to Dr. M e y e r’ s April 21, 2014, opinion sta te m e nt. The obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e supports, ra the r tha n c ontra dic ts, M r. Loa de r’ s c om pla ints a bout thee xte nt of his ba c k pa i n; inde e d, the m e d i c a l e vide nc e c o nfirm s tha t his ba c k pa in “pe rsists a nd is fa irly de bilita ting.” Dr. M e y e r’ s opinion sta te m e nt is fully

c onsiste nt with his tre atm e nt note s a nd the re c ord a s a whole . As a re s ult, theALJ ha d no ba s is for disre ga rding the v ie ws of Dr. M e y e r, who wa s not only M r. Loa d e r’ s tre ating phy s ic ia n but a lso the o nly m e dic a l doc t or whose opinions a re inc lude d in there c ord. 

# FIL ED
JAN 24 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS