N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HR ISTINE HARR ISON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-16130 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-08177-HR H M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na H. R usse l Holla

nd, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 10, 2015 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , D.W . NELSON a nd LEAVY, C irc uit Judge s. C hristineHa

rrison a ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc o m e unde r Title s II and XVI of the



# FIL ED N OV 13 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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).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 o urt’ s orde r de novo, the a dm inistra tive la w judge ’ s (“ ALJ” ) de c ision for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). W e a ffirm . The ALJ re a sona

bly inte rpre te d the e vide nc e re ga rding Ha rrison’ s m e nta l he a lth limita

tions. 1 The ALJ prope rly re lie d on Ha rrison’ s re c ord, inc luding he r m e nta l he a l th tre at

m e nt note s a

nd he r da ily func t ioning reports, to c onc l ude tha t phy sic ia n a ssista nt B arne s’ s opinion tha

t Ha rrison would be

“ una ble to hold a

job,” wa s not suffic ie ntly

c orroborate d. Se e Molina, 674 F.3d a t 1111-12 (re c ogniz ing that a c onflic t with tre atm e nt history

is a ge rm ane re a son to re

je c t a phy sic ia n a ssista nt’ s opinion); C

u rry v . Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127, 1130 (9th C ir. 1991) (c onc l uding tha

t c la im a n t’ s te stim ony

a bout he r da ily

a c tivitie s m ay

be se e n a s inc o nsiste nt with the pre se nc e o f a disa bling c o ndition). The ALJ a lso re a sona

bly de te rm i ne d tha

t B arne s’ s opinion wa s c ontra dic te d by the opinions of two exam ining psy c hologists a nd two non-e xam ining psy c hologists, a

ll of whom

found tha

t Ha rrison did not ha

ve any signific ant workre late d lim i tations ste m

m ing from

he r m e nta l im

p a irm e nts. Se eThomas v .

1 B e c a use Ha rrison ra ise d no a

rgum e nts be fore the distric t c ourt or in he r ope ning brie f pe rta ining to her phy sic a l lim ita tions, a ny issue s re ga

rding theALJ’ s de c ision a s it pe rta ine d to thoselim ita tions a re de e m e d wa ive d . 2Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ The opinions of non-tre ating or none xam ining phy sic ia

ns m a y a lso se rve a s substa

ntia l e vide nc e whe n the opinions a re c onsiste n t with inde

pe n de n t c linic a l findings or othe

r e vide nc e in the re c ord.” ). Any e rror the ALJ m a

y have m a de in a

ttributing B arne s’ s c he c klist opinion to Dr. Sa dowski, a

nd a lso pa

rtia lly disc ounting the

opinion on tha

t ba sis, wa s ha

rm le ss. Fina lly , the ALJ re a sona

bly found tha

t Ha rrison’ s te s tim ony

re ga rding the inte nsity , pe rsiste nc e , a

nd limiting e ffe c ts of he r sym ptom s wa s inc onsiste nt with the m e dic a l re c ord a

nd he r da ily

func tioning. Although the ALJ’ s re m a ining re a s ons for disc o unting Ha rrison’ s te stim ony

m ay be le ss tha

n c onvinc ing, a

ny e rror wa s ha

rm le ss in light of the

ALJ’ s se pa

ra te and le gitim ate findings, which provide d substa

ntia l e v ide nc e for the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. Se e C armic k lev . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th C ir. 2008) (stating tha

t e rror is ha

rm le s s if the “ ALJ’ s re m a ining re a soning a nd ultim ate c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion we re a de quat e ly supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c o rd” ) (e m

pha sis omitte d). AFFIRM E D.

3