N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ER IC R IC HARDSON,

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. 15-35867 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-05005-B AT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B rian Tsuc h ida , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 3, 2018 **
B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f C irc uit Judge , TR OTT a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s . Eric R ic ha

rdson a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the de c ision of theC om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity de ny ing his a

pplic ation for 

# FIL ED JAN 05 2018 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).supple m e nta l se c urity inc om e unde r Title XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo, Garrison v . C

olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th C ir. 2014), a nd we a ffirm
. The a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) prope rly disc ounte d Dr. Kha le e q’ s findings tha

t R ic ha rdson m ight ha

ve trouble m a inta ining a

tte nda nc e and
c om ple t ing a norm a l workda

y or workwe e k by

providing spe c ific and le gitim ate re a s ons for doing so. Se e Ry an v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th C ir. 2008) (ALJ m ay re

j e c t c ontrove rte d m e dic a l opinion by providing spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e ). First, theALJ disc ounte d the s e findings be c a

use the y c ontra dic te d the Globa l Asse ssm e nt of Func tioning (“ GAF” ) sc ore Dr. Kha le e q issue d indic ating tha t R ic h a rdson ha d only

m ild sym ptom s or som e diffic ulty

func tioning. Se e Garrison , 759 F.3d a t 1010 (ALJ is
re sponsiblefor re solving c onflic ts in m e d ic a l te stim ony ). The ALJ a l so disc ounte d the s e findings be c a

use the y we re inc onsiste nt with R i c ha rdson’ s “ de m onstra

te d func tioning,”inc luding, a s the ALJ note d e arlie r in thesa m e pa ra gra ph, his pe rform a nc e on Dr. Kha le e q’ s m e nta l sta tus e xam ination a

nd his a b i lity to pe rform sim ple ta sks. Se e Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008) (inc ongruity

be twe e n doc t or’ s opinion a nd he r m e dic a l re c ords m ay suffic e a s spe c ific and le gitim ate re a son for re je c t ing he r opinion).
2Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the m e nta l lim ita

tions in the

re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) a sse ssm e nt be c a use , c ontra

ry to Ric ha rdson’ s c onte ntion, theALJ did not re ly on only the opinions of non-e xam ining doc tors but
a lso on portions of Dr. Kha l e e q’ s findings a

nd R i c ha rdson’ s te stim ony . Se e Garrison , 759 F.3d a

t 1009 (“ ‘ Substa

ntia l e vide n c e ’ m e ans m ore tha n a m e re sc intilla , but le s s tha

n a pre ponde ranc e ; it is suc h re le va nt e vide nc e a s a

re a sona ble pe rson m ight a c c e p t a s a de quate to support a c onc l usion.” ) (c i tation omitte d ). Fina lly , the ALJ prope rly disc re dite d R ic ha

rdson’ s te s tim ony

by providing spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons. Se e Vasque z v . Astrue , 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th C ir. 2009) (ALJ m ay disc re dit c la im ant’ s te stim ony by providing spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons). Spe c ific a lly , the ALJ disc re dite d R ic ha rdson’ s te stim ony be c a use it wa s inc onsiste nt with obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e an d his
re ports to tre atm e nt provide rs, se e Parra v . Astrue , 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th C ir. 2007) (inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n c la im ant’ s te stim ony and m e dic a l e vide nc e are prope r grounds to discre dit te stim ony ), Tonape t y an v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th C ir. 2001) (inc onsiste nt sta te m e n ts m ay unde rm ine c la im ant’ s a lle gations),
and R ic ha rdson a dm itte d to his doc tor tha t he c ould not find a

job for a re a son unre late d to his im pa irm e nts, se e Tonape ty an , 242 F.3d a t 1148.

3Any

e rror in the re m a ining re a sons theALJ offe re d wa s ha rm le ss. S e e Batson v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th C i r. 2004) (harm le ss e rror whe re , de spite inva lid re a son for disc re d iting c la im ant’ s te s tim ony , a dve rse c re dibility

finding re m a ins supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e ). AFFIRM E D.

4