N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FR ANK J. VENTIM IGLIA, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M AR TIN J. O’ M ALLEY, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 23-35490 D.C . No. 1:22-c v-00084-TJC
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 T im othy J. C ava n, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d June 4, 2024 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : R

AW LINSON, FORREST, a nd SUNG, C irc uit Judge s. Frank Ve ntim iglia

(Ve ntim iglia) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the d e nia l of soc ia l se c urity be ne fits by

an Adm inistra

tive La w Judge (ALJ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED JUN 10 2024 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 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).“ W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing theALJ’ s de nia l of soc ia l

se c urity be n e fits de novo, a

nd will disturb the

de n ia l of be ne fits only if the de c ision
c onta ins le ga l e rror or is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . . . .” Ford v . Saul , 950 F.3d 1141, 1153-54 (9th C ir. 2020) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the ALJ’ s finding a

t Ste p Five of the an a ly sis that Ve ntim iglia ’ s subje c tive c om pla ints of se ve re pa in a

nd e xtre m e lim ita

tions in the “ use of his uppe r e xtre m itie s” we re inc onsiste nt with the m e dic a l re c ord. 1 The ALJ e xpla ine d tha

t Ve nt im iglia ’ s shoulde r and ne c k sy m ptom s im prove d with
m e dic a l tre atm e nts—inc luding inje c t ions, phy sic a l the ra py , a nd c e rvic a l surge ry . Se eSmartt v
. K

ijak azi , 53 F.4th 489, 499 (9th C ir. 2022) (“ C o ntra dic tion with the
m e dic a l re c ord is a

suffic ie nt ba sis for re

je c ting thec la im ant’ s subje c tive te stim ony . . . .” ) (c ita

tion omitte d). The ALJ’ s c onc l usion tha t Ve ntim iglia ’ s m e dic a l a ppointm e nts did not pre c lude him

from working is also supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e . Ve ntim iglia fa ile d to pre s e nt e vide nc e that his m e dic a l a ppointm e nts would preve nt him from working be c a

use he c ould not, for e xam ple , sc he dule a

ppointm e nts a

round work

1 The ALJ a lso suffic i e ntly c onside re d the im

p a c t of Ve ntim iglia ’ s he a da c h e s, whic h Ve ntim iglia te stifie d we re c o nne c t e d to his ne c k pa in.

2hours. S

e eMolina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th C ir. 2012), supe rse de d on othe r grounds by

20 C .F.R . § 404.1502(a

) (“ [W ] e m

ust uphold the ALJ’ s findings if the y are supporte d

by infe re nc e s re a sona

bly drawn from

the re c ord. . . .” ) (c ita tion omitte d). The ALJ’ s finding a

t Ste p Five tha

t a signific ant num

be r of othe r jobs e xist in the nationa l e c onom

y tha t Ve ntim iglia

c an pe rform

is supporte d by

substa ntia l
e vide nc e . The ALJ wa s not re quire d to pre s e nt a ll of Ve ntim iglia ’ s subje c tive
c om pla i nts a bout pa in or his lim

ita tions dueto m e dic a l a

ppointm e nts to the
voc ationa l e xpe rt (VE) give n the ALJ’ s we i ghing of this evide nc e . Se eBay liss v
. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th C ir. 2005) (e xpla ining tha t the “ ALJ’ s re lia

nc e on te stim ony

the VE ga

ve in re sponse to thehy

pothe t ic a l . . . wa s prope r” be c a use

“ [t] he hy pothe t ic a l tha

t the ALJ pose d to theVE c onta ine d a ll of thelim ita t ions that the ALJ found c re dible an d supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e in there c ord” ). W e do not re a c h the issue of the va lidity of the ALJ’ s de c ision a

t Ste p Four give n tha t the finding a

t Ste p Five wa s not e rrone ous. Se eTommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [A] lthough the ALJ e rre d

at step four in finding tha

t Tom m a se tti c o uld pe rform

his pa s t work, this error wa s ha rm le s s be c a use the ALJ prope rly

c onc lude d a s a

n a lte rnative at step five tha t he c ould

3pe rform work in thenationa l a nd re giona l e c onom ie s a s a se m ic onduc tor
a sse m ble r.” ). AFFIRM E D.

4