N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
KE L L Y L YNE T T E M IT CH E L L , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. CARO L YN W . CO L V IN, Ac ting Com m issione r of Soc ial Se c ur ity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-17394 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00358-C M K
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ra ig M . Ke llison, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Ja nua ry 7, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W AL L ACE and K O Z I NSKI , C irc uit Judge s , a n d W H A L E Y , ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Appe lla nt Ke lly Ly ne tte M itc he ll a

ppe a ls from

the M a gistra

t e Judge ’ s orde r 

# FIL ED MAR 15 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation 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 Honora

ble R obe rt H. W

ha le y , Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.pa ge 2

a ffirm ing theC om

m issione r’ s de nia l of he r a pplic at ion for disa

bility be ne fits unde r the Soc ia l Se c urity

Ac t, 42 U.S.C . §§ 401-434 &1381-1383f. W e a ffirm
. M itc he ll a lle ge s the Adm inistra tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) e rre d by : (1) im prope rly
re je c ting theopinion of e xam ining phy sic ia n Dr. Patric k W ong, M D ; (2) fa iling to
a c c ount for his own finding of m ode rate lim ita

tions in c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , and pa c e ; and (3) fa iling to properly c onside r la

y witne ss te stim ony . Re je c tion of E xam ining Phy s ic ian’s O pinion An ALJ m

ust givem ore de fe re nc e to the opinion of a tre ating or e xam ining phy sic ia n tha n tha t of a non-e xam ining phy sic ia

n. Le ste r v. C hate r, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C i r. 1996) (a s am e nde d). If c ontra dic t e d, a n e xam ining phy sic ia

n’ s opinion may

be re je c t e d for “ spe c ific and le gitim at e re a sons tha t a re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord.” Id. at 830-31. In the insta

nt c a se , two sta

te a ge nc y phy sic ia ns, Drs. W ong a

nd Loomis,
a uthore d inc onsiste nt opinions on M itc h e ll’ s a bility to a da pt to a workpla c e and workpla c e stre s sors. B oth doc tors found M itc h e ll a b le to c arry

out sim ple instruc tions, but Dr. Wo ng opine d tha t whe n e xpose d to workpla c e stre ssors, M itc he ll wa s at a

high risk for func tiona l de t e rioration. Dr. Loom is, on theothe r ha nd, de te rm i ne d that M itc he ll wa s a ble to m a inta in c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , a nd pa c e throughout a

norm a l workda

y whe n re stric te d to sim

ple ta sks, a

nd tha t shepa ge 3

c ould a de quate ly

inte ra c t with c o-worke rs a

nd supe rvisors. Dr. Loomis
re c o m m e nde d M i tc he ll’ s c onta c t with the ge ne ra l public be re stric te d. Although Dr. W ong e xam ine d M itc h e l l a nd Dr. Loomis did not, the ALJ
re duc e d the we ight give n to Dr. W o ng’ s opinion be c a use it did not re fle c t

the progre ss shown by

M itc he ll in subse que nt visits with he r tre at ing psy c hiatrist. M itc he ll visite d Dr. Sa

ba R i z vi, M D, for se ve ra l m o nths a fte r visiting Dr. W ong, and the re c ord de m o nstra te s a patte rn of im

prove m e nt. The func t iona l c a pa c ity
a sse sse d by

Dr. Loom is is m ore c onsiste nt with the re c ord, a nd we find no e rror in the A LJ’ s de c ision to a ssign gre at we ight to Dr. Loom is’ s opinion. M itc he ll’s Func tional L im itations in H e r Re sidual Func tional Capac i ty M itc he ll c la im s tha

t the ALJ’ s fa ilure to inc lude his own finding of m ode rate lim ita tions in c onc e ntrat ion, pe rsiste n c e , a nd pa c e in the re sidua l func tiona l
c a pa c ity a sse ssm e nt c onstitute s re ve rsible e rror. W e disa gre e . B oth Drs. W o ng a

nd Loomis a sse sse d

M itc he ll c a

pa ble of sim ple ta sks. In turn, the ALJ re s tric te d M itc he ll to “ sim ple , re pe t itive ta sks” in his de te rm ination of M i tc he ll’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity
. B a se d on this re s idua l func tiona l
c a pa c ity , a voc at iona l e xpe rt opine d tha t M itc he ll wa s c a

pa ble of working; howe v e r, the voc ationa l e xpe rt a lso sta te d tha t the a ddition of mode rate lim ita tions in c o nc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , a n d pa c e would pre c l ude he r from work.pa ge 4

This is sim

i la r to our pre vious holding in Stubbs-Da nie lson v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169 (9th C ir. 2008), in which the ALJ a de quate l y a c c ounte d for the
c la im ant’ s m ode rate lim i tations with re ga rd to pa c e by

lim iting thec l a im ant to sim ple ta sks a

t the re c om

m e ndation of a

non-e xam ining sta

te a ge nc y c onsulta nt upon re vie w of the m e dic a l re c ord. Id. a t 1173-74. In de te rm ining be ne fit
e ligibility , the ALJ in Stubbs-Da nie l son re je c te d the portions of the

voc ationa l
e xpe rt te s tim ony

tha t we re not spe c ific to the re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity a sse sse d to the c la im ant. Id. He re , the ALJ a c c ounte d for M itc he ll’ s m ode rate func tiona l lim ita tions in the re sidua l func tiona l c a

p a c ity . Se e id. a

t 1174 (holding tha

t a n ALJ’ s “ a sse ssm e nt of a c l a im ant a de quate ly

c a pture s re stric tions re lat e d to c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , or pa c e whe re the a sse ssm e nt is c onsiste nt with re stric tions identifie d in the
m e dic a l te stim ony ” ). B e c a use the ALJ’ s a sse ssm e nt of M itc he ll’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity wa s prope r and c om

ple te , the ALJ’ s hy

pothe tic a l que stion ba se d on tha

t re sidua l func t iona l c a

pa c ity wa s a l so prope r and c om ple te . Se e id. a

t 1175-76. Thus, the

ALJ wa s e ntitle d to find tha t M itc he ll wa s not disa

ble d ba se d on the voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s re sponse to his que stion. TheALJ wa s a l so e ntitle d to
re je c t the portion of the

voc ationa l e xpe rt te stim ony tha t wa s not re s ponsiveto thepa ge 5

lim ita tions heide ntifie d in his re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity a sse ssm e nt. Se e id. a

t 1173-74. Re je c tion of L ay W i tne ss T e stim ony Fina lly , we find no e rror with theALJ’ s re je c t ion of la

y witne ss te stim ony by Sa lly Lofthus, a

form e r e m

ploy e r of the c l a im ant. To disc ount la

y te stim ony , a

n ALJ m ust providege rm ane re a sons. Dodrill v. Sha la l a , 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th C ir. 1993). An ALJ m ust “ c onside r obse rvat ions by
non-m e dic a l sourc e s a s to how a n im pa irm e nt a ffe c ts a

c la im ant’ s a

bility to work.” Spra gue v. B owe n, 812 F.2d 1226, 1232 (9th C ir. 1987). Howe ve r, non-m e dic a l te stim ony c annot e sta

blish a dia gnosis or disa

bility a bse nt c orroborating c o m

pe te nt
m e dic a l e vide nc e . Nguy e n v. C hate r, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th C ir. 1996). The ALJ c onside re d the c onte nts of Lofthus’ s le tte r, but c hose not to give
we ight to Lofthus’ s opinion tha t M itc he ll c ould not work be c a use it wa s a de te rm i nation of disa

bility . The opinion tha

t M i tc he ll is una

ble to work is not supporte d by the m e d ic a l e vide nc e , a nd it is non-me dic a l te stim ony tha t atte m pts to
e sta blish disa bility , whic h is im

pe rm issible . Id. AFFIRM E D.