N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LELA K. NEFF, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15839 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02122-M HB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na M ic h e lle H. B urns, M a g istra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 13, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd REINHAR

DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s . Le la Ne ff se e ks re vie w of the de nia l of he r a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED APR 26 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.The ALJ did not err by we ighing Ne ff’ s e xam ining a nd re vie wing phy sic ia ns’ opinions over the opinion of Dr. Dom inic , he r tre at ing phy sic ia n. Dr. Dom inic c o m

ple te d se ve ra l c he c k-box func tiona l re ports sta ting tha t Ne ff ha s se ve re func tiona l lim ita

t ions. Opinions in “ c he c k-box form ” c an be e ntitle d to substa ntia l we ight whe n a de quate ly supporte d. Garrison v . C olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1013 (9th C ir. 2014). B ut he re , the ALJ c orre c tly re c ogniz e d tha t ne i the r Dr. Dom inic ’ s own note s nor the re c ords in his file supporte d the se ve re func tiona l lim ita tions here c om

m e nde d. This is a

spe c ific and le gitim ate re a son to give his opinion little

we i g ht. Se e Leste r v . C

h ate r , 81 F.3d 821, 831 (9th C ir. 1995). Nor did the ALJ e rr by

de fining Ne ff’ s re s idua l func t iona l c a pa c ity (RFC ) with re fe re nc e to he r e xe rtiona l le ve l— “ se de nta ry work”

—

ra t he r tha n doing a func tion-by -func tion a sse ssm e nt. Though a n ALJ m u st “ a sse ss the individual’ s c a pa c ity to pe rform

e a c h [e xe rtiona l a

n d none xe rtiona l] func tion[] in orde r to de c ide whic h e xe rtiona l le ve l is a p propria te ,” Soc ia l Se c urity

R uling 96-8p, a

n ALJ c an m e e t this burden by “ t[aking] into a c c ount thoselim ita tions for whic h the re wa s re c ord support tha t did not de

pe nd on [the c la im ant’ s] subje c tive
c om pla i nts.” Bay liss v
. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th C ir. 2005). TheALJ took into a c c ount a ll limita tions for whic h he found support in the re c ord.

2The ALJ did not errone ously om it re stric tions from

Ne ff’ s R FC re l ate d to he r m e nta l he a lth, obe sity , or ha nds. The phy sic ia

ns the ALJ c re dite d opine d tha t Ne ff ha s som e re stric tions in the se are a s, but the re stric t ions we re e xplic itly
c onside re d by

the ALJ a

nd a re a c c o m m odate d by his finding tha

t Ne ff is lim ite d to unskille d se de nta ry work. The ALJ did not fai l to prope rly c onside r the subje c tive te stim ony of Ne ff or he r m othe r. The ALJ re c ogniz e d tha t Ne ff’ s a n d he r m othe r’ s te stim ony tha t Ne ff suffe re d disa

bling im p a irm e nts wa s inc onsiste nt with the re c ord e vide nc e . For
e xam ple , the ALJ note d

tha t Ne ff “ e xpla i n[e d] that she is [in] c onsta nt pa in a nd is
una ble to sle e p m ore tha

n a fe w hours a

t a tim e at night whic h c a

use s he r fa tigue , de pre s sion, diffic ulty foc using, a nd re m e m be ring a t tim e s,” and tha

t she is “una

ble to sit, sta n d or la y for ve ry long, una ble to lift or use

re pe titivem otion without
se ve re pa in, a

nd c a nnot c o nc e ntrate on work or da ily a c tivitie s.” The ALJ
re c o gniz e d tha

t Ne ff’ s m othe r te stifie d tha t Ne ff “ re quire s a s sista

nc e with pe rsona l
c are ; she c annot e nga ge in be nding, lifting, or c arry ing due to pa in; ha s bla c kouts while driving; a

nd he r func tiona l c a

p a c ity is furthe r a ffe c te d

by pa in, de pre ssion,
anxie ty , and m e dic ations, a m ong othe r things.” The ALJ prope rly found this te stim ony to be inc onsiste nt with the m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c o rd. For e xam ple , re c o rds show Ne ff ha d a norm a l C T sc an, he r m e nta l sta tus wa s “ c om

ple t e ly
3norm a l,” he r “ ne urologic a l sy m ptom s ha [d] re solve d,” and she c ould “ am bula te by he rse lf without a

ny diffic ulty .” The se inc onsiste nc ie s provide a spe c ific , c le ar, an d
c onvinc i ng re a son to disc ount Ne ff’ s te stim ony , se e Burre ll v . C olv in , 775 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th C ir. 2014), a n d a spe c ific an d ge rm ane re a s on to disc ount Ne ff’ s
m othe r’ s te stim ony , se e Bruc e v . Astrue , 557 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th C ir. 2009). The ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha t Ne ff c an pe rform

unskille d se de nta

ry work is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . AFFIR M ED.

4