NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASON WALDRAM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-35893 

D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01495-MAT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Mary Alice Theiler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 5, 2023**

Seattle, Washington

Before: WARDLAW and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,*** District 

Judge.

Jason Waldram appeals the district court’s decision upholding an 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

FILED

DEC 5 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of social security disability benefits. 

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except 

as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We “will disturb the denial of 

benefits only if the decision contains legal error or is not supported by substantial 

evidence.” Terry v. Saul, 998 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ford v. 

Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2020)). We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The ALJ properly weighed the medical opinion of examining 

psychologist Dr. Gerald Cavenee in determining that Waldram is not disabled 

within the meaning of the Social Security Act. For applications filed on or after 

March 27, 2017, “[t]he most important factors that the agency considers when 

evaluating the persuasiveness of medical opinions are supportability and 

consistency.” Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2). 

Considering the supportability of Dr. Cavenee’s opinion, the ALJ found that

although Dr. Cavenee’s proposed limitations were “supported by the 

psychologist’s exam,” these limitations were “wholly inconsistent with how 

[Waldram] actually performed.” For example, Dr. Cavenee found that Waldram 

had a moderate limitation on understanding, remembering, and persisting in tasks 

by following short and simple instructions. But Dr. Cavenee’s exam showed that 
3 

Waldram’s thought process, thought content, orientation, perception, memory, 

fund of knowledge, concentration, insight, and judgment were all within normal 

limits. Moreover, Waldram scored a 30/30 on a “mental status” exam, which Dr. 

Cavenee interpreted to mean that Waldram had “no impairment.” Therefore, 

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that the relevant objective 

medical evidence from Dr. Cavenee’s examination did not support his proposed 

mental limitations. See Woods, 32 F.4th at 791–92 (“Supportability means the 

extent to which a medical source supports the medical opinion by explaining the 

‘relevant . . . objective medical evidence.’” (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1))). 

The ALJ also found that Dr. Cavenee’s opinion was “inconsistent with other 

evidence of record as a whole,” because although “[Waldram] received inpatient 

care in 2019 and 2020 . . . overall, through the longitudinal period at issue, 

[Waldram] presented unremarkably.” For instance, despite Waldram’s notable 

complaints of depression, anxiety, and PTSD, the ALJ found that Waldram’s

health records showed that he retained his thought process, was attentive, had no 

memory deficits, and was capable of engaging in discussions with health care 

providers. The ALJ therefore adequately explained why Dr. Cavenee’s medical 

opinion was inconsistent with evidence from other medical sources. See Woods, 

32 F.4th at 792 (“Consistency means the extent to which a medical opinion is 

‘consistent . . . with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical 
4 

sources in the claim.’” (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(2))). 

Furthermore, the ALJ did not commit legal error in discrediting 

Dr. Cavenee’s opinion. First, a fair consideration of the ALJ’s decision shows that 

the ALJ considered and discredited Dr. Cavenee’s opinions regarding Waldram’s 

moderate and marked limitations, and adequately explained the decision to do so. 

See Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 843, 851 (9th Cir. 2022) (noting that a 

reviewing court must consider an ALJ’s full explanation, not just an isolated part); 

see also Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 

2014) (noting that even if a decision is explained “with less than ideal clarity,” any 

error is harmless if the agency’s path “may be reasonably discerned.”). Second, 

contrary to Waldram’s contention, the ALJ did not discount Dr. Cavenee’s opinion 

because of its “checkbox” format. And even if the ALJ had discredited the 

medical opinion for this reason, it would not constitute legal error. See Kitchen v. 

Kijakazi, 82 F.4th 732, 740–41 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]e have accepted the 

discounting of a medical opinion set forth in a checkbox form with little to no 

explanation.”). Lastly, the ALJ’s recognition that Waldram’s hospitalizations for 

psychiatric care occurred “in the context of substance abuse” was not improper 

because the ALJ did not rely on Waldram’s substance use in determining that he 

was not disabled. See, e.g., Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 955 (9th Cir. 

2001). 
5 

Therefore, because the ALJ properly considered and addressed the 

supportability and consistency of Dr. Cavenee’s opinion, and because “considering 

the record as a whole, a reasonable person” could find that the evidence supported 

the ALJ’s conclusion, the ALJ’s decision to discredit Dr. Cavenee’s opinions 

regarding Waldram’s mental limitations was supported by substantial evidence. 

Terry, 998 F.3d at 1012.

AFFIRMED.