N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT REB EC C A LITTLEFIELD,

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. 19-35304 D.C . No. 6:18-c v-00500-M K 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 M usta fa T. Ka subha i, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M arc h 11, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, IKUTA, a

nd B RESS, C irc uit Judge s. R e be c c a Little fie ld a

ppe a ls a m a g i strate judge ’ s orde r a ffirm ing the fina l de c ision of theC om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity de ny ing he r a

pplic ation for 

# FIL ED

MAR 19 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).disa

bility be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l-se c urity inc o m e . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm . The Adm inistra

tive La wJudge (ALJ) did not err at ste p two by c onc luding that Little fie ld did not ha

ve a m e dic a lly

de te rm ina

b le m e n ta l im

pa irm e nt, be c a

use the re c ord c onta ins no “m e dic a lly a c c e pta ble c linic a l a

nd la borat ory dia gnostic te c hnique s” or “ obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e from an a c c e p t a

ble m e d ic a l sourc e ” indic ating tha

t Little fie l d ha d a

m e nta l im

pa irm e nt. 20 C .F.R . § 404.1521. In re a c hing this c onc lusion, the ALJ did not fail to disc ha rge he r duty to de ve lop the re c o rd, be c a

u se the re c ord wa s a de quate to a llow for prope r e va luation of the e vide nc e . Se e May e

s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th C ir. 2001). The ALJ offe re d

ge rm a n e re a sons for re

je c t ing the opinion of Nurse Ha y e s, who is a n “ othe r” m e dic a l sourc e s. Popa v . Be rry hill , 872 F.3d 901, 906 (9th C ir. 2017). The ALJ note d tha t Ha y e s’ s opinion wa s “ not fully c onsiste nt” with othe r c onte m p orane ous e vide nc e . The ALJ a l so offe re d ge rm ane re a sons for re je c ting the o pinions of Trish Sha nnon a nd Nic ole De side rati, both of whom are a lso

“ othe r” m e dic a l sourc e s. Se e id. The ALJ note d tha t Sha nnon’ s opinion wa s inc o nsiste nt with the c onte m pora ne ous obse rvations of Dr. C h e ung, Little fie ld’ s tre ating phy sic i a

n, a nd tha t De side rati’ s lim ite d obse rvations c onflic te d with other obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e in the re c ord. 2The ALJ did not ne e d to m e ntion theopinions of non-exam ining sta te a ge nc y doc tors B o y d a

nd Ke ssle r re ga

rding Little fie ld’ s workpla c e lim ita tions due to m e nta l im

pa irm e nts, be c a

use portions of the

opinions were inc orporate d into the re sidua l func t iona l c a

pa c ity finding. Se e Stubbs-Danie lson v . Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1173–75 (9th C ir. 2008) (e xpla ining tha t a n ALJ’ s a s se ssm e n t “ a de quate ly c a pture s” m e dic a l opinions whe n the a sse s sm e nt is c onsiste nt with pa rts of those opinions, eve n if the a sse ssm e nt doe s not spe c ific a lly m e ntion the m ). To the e xte nt the ALJ e rre d by

not inc luding or e xpla ining he r disa gre e m e nt with the se doc tors’ opinions tha

t Little fie ld c o uld c om

p le te only 1–2 step ta sks, a

ny e rror is ha rm le s s. Se e Garc ia v . C

omm’r. , 768 F.3d 925, 932 (9th C ir. 2014). Theonly m e dic a l ly a c c e pta ble e vide nc e in the re c ord wa s provide d by Dr. C he ung, who opine d tha t Little fie ld did not ha

ve any m e nta l im

pa i rm e nt. Ne ithe r B oy d nor Ke ssle r re lie d on a

ny obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e in re a c h ing the ir c onc lusion re ga rding the1–2 step ta sks limita tion, a nd the re fore the ALJ wa s not re quire d to re ly on it. Se e Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ A n ALJ ne e d not a c c e pt the opinion of a doc tor if tha

t opinion is brie f, c onc lusory , a nd ina d e quate ly

supporte d by

c linic a l findings.”(c le ane d up)). Like wise , the ALJ did not err by fa iling to me ntion the1–2 step ta sks lim ita tion whe n que stioning the voc ationa l e xpe rt, be c a

use “ in hy

pothe t ic a ls pose d 3to a voc ationa l e xpe rt, the ALJ m ust only inc lude those lim ita

t ions supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .” Robbins v . C omm’r. , 466 F.3d 880, 886 (9th C ir. 2006). Little fie l d’ s re l ia

nc e on Rounds v . C

ommissione r , 807 F.3d 996, 1003 (9th C ir. 2015) is there fore m ispla c e d. Fina lly , the ALJ did not err in its de te rm ination tha t Little fie ld’ s te stim ony re ga rding he r phy sic a l pa in wa s not e ntire ly c onsiste n t with there c ord. The ALJ prope rly re je c te d Little fie ld’ s te stim ony ba se d on e vide nc e of drug-se e king be havior, se eEdlund v . Massanari , 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th C ir. 2001), a s we ll a s inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n Little fie ld’ s te stim ony and othe r obje c tive m e d ic a l e vide nc e . AFFIRM E D.

4