This disposit ion is not appropriate f or publication and is not pre cedent except as * provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3. The pa nel unanimously

conclude s this case is suitable for decision without oral * * argument. See Fe d. R App. 34(a) (2)

The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge f or the Central *** District of California, sittingby designation. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT GA R Y M. T HE B O, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C om m i s s i one rof S oc i a l S e c ur i ty A dm i ni s tr a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 35097 D. C . No . C V 0 8 - 3 1 2 1 - HU ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon D e nni s J a m e s H ube l , M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 11, 2011 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B e f o r e : T HO MAS a n d GR AB E R , C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d S E L NA , D i stri ctJudg e. *** G a ry T he bo appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de ra f f i rm i ng the de c i s i on of

the a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e ( “A L J ” ) d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o rd is ab ility b e n e f

its . 

# FI LED JU N 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

We r e v i e w de no vo th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e ra f f irm in g th e A L J ’s d e n ia l o f b e n e f its . T om m as e t t iv . A s tr ue , 533 F . 3d 1035, 1038 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . T he de c i s i on m a y be se tas i de “ on l y i f i ti s notsupp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence or i s bas ed on l egal error. ” R obbi ns v . Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 4 6 6 F . 3 d 8 8 0 , 8 8 2 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). B ecau se th e f a c tu a l a n d p r o c e d u r a l h is to ry is f a m ilia rto th e p a rtie s , w e n e e d n o t r e c o u n t it here . T h e A L J d id n o t e rrb y r e je c tin g T h e b o ’s te s tim o n y a s n o t c r e d ib le . F ir s t, th e A L J g av e “sp ec ific, clearan d co n v in cin g re as o n s” fo r d isco u n ti n g T h eb o ’s te s tim o n y . Sm ol en v. Cha ter , 80 F . 3d 1273, 1281 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . T he A L J f ound th a t th e w e ig h t o f

th e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e c o n f lic te d w ith th e d is ab ility c la im , a s d id T h eb o ’ s d ai l y act i v i t i es, w h i ch i n cl u d ed t ak i n g care o f h i s ch i l d ren , d o i n g l au n d ry, prepari ng m ea l s, w as hi ng hi s c ar , and g roce ryshop pi ng . T he A L J a l so no t ed t es t i m on i al i ncon si st enci es and m edi ca l no ncom pl i ance . S ec on d, there w as a f f irm a tiv e e v id e n c e o f

m a lin g e r in g . Se e C arm i c kle v . C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 5 3 3 F . 3 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 6 0 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). T w o p sych i atri st s an d a p sych o l o g i st exam i ned T hebo and fou nd thathi s r eport s “ appear[ ed] m ore f i ct i on al than del usi on al , ” s ug gest i ng “ po ss i bl e m al i ng er i ng or conv er si on sy m pt om s, ra ther than P T S D . ” Se e M

a tth e w s v . Sh a la la , 1 0 F .3 d 6 7 8 , 6 7 9 - 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) .B e c a us ethetre atingdo c tor ’sop ini on c on fl ic te d withthee xaminingdo c tors’ finding s, 1 the ALJdid not need to state “ clea r and c onvincing ” re asons for rejec ting the treating physician’s opinion. Magallanes v. Bowen , 881 F.2d 747, 751 ( 9th Cir. 1989). 3 A dd i t i on al l y, an exam i ni ng neurol og i stfoun d thatT hebo ’ s m uscul arw ea kn es s w as

“ ‘ gi ve aw ay ’ i n n ature. ” S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the A L J ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tT he bo di d not s u f f e rf r o m as e v e r e lu n g im p a irm e n t. See A n dr e w s v . Sh a la la , 53 F . 3d 1035, 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . S p e c if ic a lly , ac h e s t X - r a y a n d C T s c a n w e r e n o rm a l, m edi ca l re po rt s i nd i ca t ed thatT hebo ’ s a i rw aydi se as e w as re vers i bl e and that m e di c a t i on a l l e vi a t e d hi s s y m pt om s , a nd aphy s i c i a n r e port e d tha the obs e rve d no he m opty s i s . A l though T he bo poi nt s t o c ount e rva i l i ng m e di c a l e vi de nc e , m uc h of the e vi de nc e he c i t e s c om e s f r om be f or e hi s a l l e ge d ons e tda t e a nd r e l i e s i n l a r ge pa rton hi s s ubj e c t i ve c om pl a i nt s , w hi c h ha ve be e n di s c ount e d. W he r e the e vi de nc e s upport s m or e tha n one r a t i ona l i nt e rpr e t a t i on, the c ourtm us tde f e rt o the A L J ’s d e c is io n . B at

s on v . C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; T

h o m a s v. B a rn h a rt , 27 8 F . 3d 94 7, 95 4 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). T he A L J di d note rrby r e j e c t i ng the tr e a t i ng doc t or ’ s opi ni on i n f a vorof the e xa m i ni ng doc t or s ’ opi ni ons be c aus e the A L J ga ve “ s pe c i f i c , l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons f

or d is r e g a r d in g th e o p in io n o f th e tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n .” M atne y v . Sul l i v an , 981 F . 2d 1 10 16 , 10 19 (9th C i r. 19 92 ). F i rs t , the A L J not ed thatthe tre at i ng do ct or’ s r eport4

appe a r e d t o be pr e m i s e d on T he bo’ s s ubj e c t i ve c om pl a i nt s , a nd the A L J ha d f ound th a t T h e b o ’s s u b

je c tiv e c o m p la in ts w e r e n o t c r e d ib le . See T on ap et yan v. H al ter , 24 2 F . 3d 11 44 , 11 49 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). S ec on d, the tre at i ng do ct or’ s r eportw as c om pl e t e d i n 2001 w hi l e the e xa m i ni ng doc t or s ’ r e port s w e r e c om pl e t e d i n 2002, w hi ch i s r el evanti nsofaras i tsugg es t s that , even i f T hebo suff er ed fr om P T S D at o n e tim e , h e d id n o t s u f f e rf r o m P T S D th r o u g h h is d a te la s t in s u r e d . T h ir d , o n ly on e doct or concl ud ed thatT hebo suff er ed fr om P T S D , w here as se vera l do ct ors c o n c lu d e d th a t T h e b o d id n o t s u f f e rf r o m P T S D . See E d lu n d v. M a ssa n a ri , 253 F . 3d 11 52 , 11 57 -58 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). F ou rth, the tre at i ng do ct or’ s opi ni on appeare d t o r e s ton as i ngl e m e e t i ng w i th T he bo, unde r c utt i ng the “ r a t i ona l e f orgi vi ng grea t erw ei gh tt o a tre at i ng ph ys i ci an’ s opi ni on . ” Sp ragu e v . B ow en , 812 F . 2d 1226, 1230 ( 9th C i r . 1987) . T he s e s pe c i f i c , l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons w e r e s uf f i c i e nt g r o u n d s f

o rth e A L J ’s r e

je c tio n o f

th e tr e a tin g d o c to r ’s o p in io n . T he A L J a l so gave re as on s “ germ ane t o eac h w i tness ” f or re j ec t i ng the l ay w itn e s s te s tim o n y o f

T h e b o ’s w if

e a n d m o th e r . Se e D o dr ill v . Sh a la la , 12 F . 3d 91 5, 91 9 (9th C i r. 19 93 ). T he t es t i m on y of T hebo ’ s w i fe and m other c on fl i ct ed w i th the A L J ’ s f

i ndi ngs tha tT he bo di d nots uf f e rf r om s e ve r e P T S D , l ung i m pa i rm e nt , orj oi ntpa i n, a nd thos e f i ndi ngs w e r e ba s e d on the w e i ghtof the m e d ic a l e v id e n c e . See L ew is v . Apf el , 236 F . 3d 503, 511 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( “ O ne5

r e a s o n f o rw h ic h a n A L J m a y d is c o u n t la y te s tim o n y is th a t it c o n f lic ts w ith m e di c a l e vi de nc e . ” ( c i t i ng V i ncent exre l . V i ncent v. H ec kler , 739 F . 2d 1393, 1395 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ) ) . A lth o u g h th e A L J d id n o t “c le a r ly lin k ” h is r e j e c t i on of

the l a y t e s t i m ony t o the c onf l i c t s be tw e e n the l a y t e s t i m ony a nd the m edi ca l evi dence, he sum m ar i ze d the w i fe ’ s and m other’ s s t at em ent s and no t ed that“ bo th [st at em ent s] w er e c on si dere d i n arr i vi ng atthe re si du al funct i on al capaci ty” and that“ [c ] on si dera t i on [w as ] gi ven t o the m edi ca l op i ni on s and l ay re po rt i ng . ” Se e i d. a t512 ( f i ndi ng tha tthe A L J “ not e d a r guabl y ge rm a ne r e a s ons f ordi s m i s s i ng the [ l a y ] t e s t i m ony , e ve n i f he di d notc l e a r l y l i nk hi s de t e rm i na t i on to th o se re as o n s” ). E v en if th e A L J’s r ejec ti o n o f th e w ife’s a n d m o th er ’s t e s t i m ony ha d be e n a n e rr or , T he bo ha s notm e thi s bur de n of s how i ng tha tthe e rr o rw a s h a rm f

u l. Sh i n sekiv. Sa n ders , - - - U .S . - - - - , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 6 9 6 , 1 7 0 6 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . In d eed , th e reco rd su g g est s th atth e erro r w as h arm l ess , i d. a t1708, be c aus e the A L J c o n s id e r e d th e te s tim o n y in d e te rm in in g T h e b o ’s r e s id u a l f u n c tio n a l c ap a c ity . T h e A L J p r o p e r ly r e lie d o n th e v o c a tio n a l e x p e rt’s r e s p o n s e to h is hypothe t i c a l . T he A L J ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tT he bo di d nots uf f e rf r om s e ve r e j oi nt pai n w as supp ort ed by subst ant i al m edi ca l evi dence, i ncl ud i ng i m agi ng stud i es s h o w in g n o a rth r itic c h a n g e s , s tu d ie s b a s e d o n b o n e s c a n s in d ic a tin g “m in im a l” de ge ne r a t i ve c ha nge s , a nd T he bo’ s r e porttha thi s j oi ntpa i n w a s a l l e vi a t e d bySee M cLeod, 2011 WL1886355, at *4 (c oncludingthat the holdings of McCartey v. 2 Massa na ri , 298 F.3d 1072, 1076 ( 9th Cir. 2002), and Tonapetyan , 242 F.3d at 1150, “taken t o geth er es t ab l i s hth atwh enth e r ec o rds ugges t s a l i kel ih o o d th atth er e i s a VA d i s ab i l i ty ratin g, and does not show what it is , the ALJhas a duty to inquire”). See McLeod, 2 0 1 1 W L1 8 8 6 3 5 5 , at* 4 (c i tin g Shinseki , 129 S. Ct . 1696). 3 6 m e di c a t i on. T hus , the A L J ’ s r e s i dua l f unc t i ona l c apa c i ty de t e rm i na t i on a nd the hypothe t i c a l he pos e d t o the voc a t i ona l e xpe rtw e r e s upport e d by the r e c or d, Sa m p le v. Schw eike r , 694 F . 2d 639, 644 ( 9th C i r . 1982) , a nd i nc l ude d a l l of T h e b o ’s f

u n c tio n a l lim ita tio n s , T

hom as , 2 7 8 F .3 d a t 9 5 6 . F i na l l y , i n hi s not i c e of

s uppl e m e nt a l author i ty , T he bo a r gue d tha ti n l i ghtof McL e od v . A s tr ue , N o. 09- 35190, 2011 W L 1886355 ( 9th C i r . M a y 19, 2011) , the c a s e s h o u l d b e r e m a n d e d t o th e AL J f o rf u rth e rd e v e l o p m e n to f

T h e b o ’ s VA r e c or ds . A l though McL e od w a s d e c id e d a f

te rT h e b o s u b m itte d h is o p e n in g b r ie f , McL e od appl i ed w el l -e st abl i shed N i nth C i rc ui tca se l aw and a U ni t ed S t at es 2 Su p r e me Co u rtd e c i s i o n th a tw a s i s s u e d b e f o r e Th e b o f

i l e d h i s o p e n i n g b r i e f

. By 3 notr a i s i ng the a r gum e ntbe f or e the di s tr i c tc ourtori n hi s ope ni ng br i e f , T he bo w a iv e d th e a r g u m e n t. Sm i th v. M a rsh , 19 4 F . 3d 10 45 , 10 52 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). E ven i f h e h a d n o twa i v e d th e a r g u m e n t , th e “ c i r c u m s t an c e s o f th e c a s e ” d o n o t“ s h o w a subst ant i al l i kel i ho od of prej ud i ce . ” See M cL e od , 2 0 1 1 W L 1 8 8 6 3 5 5 , a t * 5 . T he bo w a s r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l thr oughoutthe pr oc e e di ngs a nd, not abl y , the7

m edi ca l re cords do n otsugg es tthatthe V A consi dere d h i m t o b e f ul l y di sabl ed at a n y tim e . A FFI R M ED .