N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ELISSA PETR INI,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-16946 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01583-JD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s Dona

to, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 12, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B EA a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R OB R ENO, ** Distric t Judge . C la im ant M e lissa

Pe trini a ppe a ls the de nia l of he r a

pplic a tion for supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e disa

b ility be ne fits. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . 

# F IL ED JUL 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

ble Edua rdo C . R obre n o, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva nia , sitting by

de s igna tion.1. The a dm inistra tive la w judge (ALJ) did not e rr in we i ghting the va rious phy sic i an opinions. The inc onsiste nc i e s c ite d by the ALJ a m ounte d to spe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons supporte d by substa n tia l e vide n c e for a ssigning

“ lim ite d we ight” to Dr. R utte r’ s opinions a

b out Pe t rini’ s sy m ptom s, lim ita

tions, and ultim a t e disa

bility . Se e Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005). For e x am

ple , the sam e da

y Dr. R utte r opine d

tha t Pe trini wa s e n tire ly

“ disa ble d from work” due to “ s ym

ptom s of m ood la

b i lity , irrita

b ility an d poor c onc e ntration,” Pe trini re porte d to Dr. R utte r tha t he r m ood la

bility and irrita bility we re m ild. Dr. R

utte r’ s tre a t

m e nt re c ords from

tha t da y a l so re fle c t his obse rvations tha

t Pe trini ha d no c ognitivedisturba n c e ; tha t she wa s we ll-orga

niz e d and goa l-orie nte d; a

nd tha t he r a tte ntion spa

n a nd m ood ha d im

prove d. As fa

r ba c k a s Dr. R utte r’ s first a

ppointm e nt with Pe t

rini, the tre a tm e nt re c ords––whic h re fle c t e d tha

t Pe t rini ha d a “ ve ry good” m e m ory

– –c ontra dic te d Dr. R

utte r’ s late r im pa irm e nt opinions, whic

h c la im e d tha

t Pe trini ha d a

“ poor m e m ory . ” B y e xpla ining tha

t Dr. Ka lm an’ s opinions were inc onsiste nt with his re c o rde d obse rvations a

nd re l ie d too he avily

on Pe trini’ s re pre se ntations found not to be c re dible , the ALJ provide d spe c ific an d le gitim a te re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e for a ssigning “ l im ite d we ight” to Dr. Ka l m an’ s opinions. Se e id. ; Morgan v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 169 F.3d 595, 598–600, 602 (9th Cir. 21999). For e x am ple , Dr. Ka lm an’ s m e nta l sta tus e va luation of Pe trini wa s fa irly norm a l, a nd Dr. Ka lm an’ s note s re c orde d his obse rvations tha t Pe trini wa s orie nte d, logic a l, a

nd goa l-dire c te d. Pe trini re porte d to Dr. Ka lm an tha t she wa s a ble to pe rform

se ve ra l a c tivitie s of da ily living a nd tha t she got a long we ll with frie nds a nd fam ily . The se re lative ly positivere ports a

nd obse rvations c ontra dic te d Dr. Ka lm an’ s opinions tha t Pe trini ha d fa irly

se ve re sy m ptom s a n d m arke d lim ita tions. It wa s a lso prope r for the ALJ to disc ount Dr. Ka lm an’ s findings a nd opinions, be c a

use the y we re “ pre m ise d to a

la rge e xte nt” upon Pe trini’ s subje c tive re ports, whic h the ALJ found not to be c re d ible . 1 Morgan , 169 F.3d a t 598–600, 602 (c ita tion omitte d). The ALJ prope rly

inc orporate d Dr. Pa lm e r’ s opinions into the re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity (RFC ) finding a

nd did not err in he r e xpla nation of the opinions’ we i ght. Dr. Pa lm e r’ s opinions a b out Pe t rini’ s lim ita

tions on a tte nda nc e , e ndura nc e , a n d a bility to ha ndle stre ss we re not inc onsiste nt with Dr. B ilik’ s opinions. The

struc ture , c ita

tions, a nd la ngua ge of the ALJ’ s de c i sion show tha t the ALJ prope rly

“ transla te d” the opinions of Drs. B i lik a nd Pa lm e r into a

n R FC tha t e m bra c e d the lim ita

t ions found by

both doc tors, e ve n though the R FC finding did not m irror the la

ngua ge of the ir opinions. S e e Stubbs-Danie lson v . Astrue , 539 F.3d

1 Pe trini did not a

p p e a l the ALJ’ s finding a bout he r c re dibility . 31169, 1173–74 (9th C ir. 2008); se e also Rounds v. C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ [T] he ALJ is re sponsiblefor tra nsla t ing a nd inc o rporating c linic a l findings into a suc c inc t R

FC .” ). 2. B e c a

use the ALJ pe rm issibly

disc ounte d the opinions of Drs. R utte r and Ka lm an , she wa s not re q uire d to inc o rporate the ir opinions into the R FC finding. Se eBatson v . C

o m m’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th C ir. 2004). In a ddition, be c a

use the ALJ prope rly

“ transla te d” the opinions of Drs. B ilik and Pa lm e r into theR

FC a sse ssm e nt, the ALJ wa s pe rm itte d to limit he r hy pothe t ic a l que stions to the c onditions re fle c te d in the R FC . Se e Stubbs-Danie lson , 539 F.3d a t 1173–75. 3. In light of our disposition of this a ppe a l , we ne e d not c onside r whe the r an orde r for a

n a ward of be ne fits on re m and would ha ve be e n a ppropria te . W e hav e c onside re d Pe trini’ s re m a ining a rgum e nts a

nd find the m

unpe rsua sive . AFFIRM E D .

4