NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GINO R. QUARTUCCI,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

Acting Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-35740

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-06041-BAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Brian A. Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 8, 2021**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL,*** District 

Judge.

Gino R. Quartucci appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the 

* 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 Karen K. Caldwell, United States District Judge for 

the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Quartucci’s application for 

supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We 

review the district court's decision de novo and may reverse the agency’s denial of 

benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or contains legal error.

Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017).

Quartucci argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in 

discounting the opinion of examining psychologist Terilee Wingate, Ph.D., who 

opined that Quartucci had “marked” limitations in the ability to perform certain 

basic work activities. The ALJ, however, gave specific and legitimate reasons for 

rejecting Dr. Wingate’s opinion, which was contradicted by the opinions of Dr. 

Brown and Dr. Donahue, and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence 

in the record. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ 

correctly determined that Dr. Wingate’s opinion was not supported by her own 

evaluations or the treatment notes of Quartucci’s treating therapists, none of which 

contains findings that would require the marked limitations that Dr. Wingate 

assessed. The ALJ further correctly noted that the marked limitations were not 

supported by the function report completed by Quartucci himself that indicated he 

engages in a wide range of activities.

Quartucci argues that the ALJ erred in giving little weight to the opinion of 

treating therapist Judith Oliver, who opined that Quartucci exhibited a “marked 
3 

inability to sustain a regular work routine . . . .” At the time that Quartucci filed 

his application for benefits, mental health counselor associates like Oliver were not 

considered “acceptable medical sources.” See Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041, 

1046 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying regulations in effect at the time the social security 

claim is filed); 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a) (effective Sept. 3, 2013 to March 26, 2017).

Instead, Oliver would be considered an “other source.” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(d) 

(effective Sept. 3, 2013 to March 26, 2017). For these sources, the ALJ must 

provide “germane reasons” for rejecting their opinions. Leon, 880 F.3d at 1046.

The ALJ correctly determined that Oliver’s opinion was not supported by her own 

treatment records showing “relatively benign findings.” This is at least a germane 

reason for rejecting Oliver’s opinion. 

Quartucci argues that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the findings of 

treating ARNP Nancy Armstrong. But Armstrong did not provide an opinion as to 

Quartucci’s ability to perform work-related functions, and Quartucci does not 

explain how Armstrong’s treatment notes would support a finding that he is unable 

to perform any such functions. 

Quartucci argues that the ALJ erred by failing to consider the notes of a 

Social Security facilitator who observed that, during his interview, Quartucci 

avoided eye contact and that he had a flat affect. Even if the ALJ erred in failing to 
4 

mention these comments, they do not indicate that Quartucci has greater 

limitations in the ability to perform work-related functions than the ALJ assessed. 

Quartucci argues the ALJ incorrectly rejected his testimony that the reason 

he could not do even a simple, unskilled job was because “he would not be able to 

keep a consistent schedule,” be “fully oriented,” or know the “time, day, date, his 

location, or even who he was.” The ALJ gave “clear and convincing” reasons for 

rejecting this testimony. See Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 

599 (9th Cir. 1999). The ALJ determined that no evidence in the record supported

such a limitation, and Quartucci points to no such evidence on appeal. In addition, 

in making the credibility determination, the ALJ gave “significant weight” to the 

non-examining state agency psychological consultants, both of whom determined 

that Quartucci was either not significantly limited in the ability to perform certain 

identified work activities or that he had only moderate limitations, which were 

incorporated into the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) assessment. 

Further, the ALJ appropriately considered inconsistencies between 

Quartucci’s testimony and his own reported conduct and activities. See Bray v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009). Quartucci 

reported or testified that he eats out, cooks, travels, does household chores, cares 

for his minor son, plays various musical instruments and video games, drives and 

uses public transportation, listens to lectures a few hours each week on 
5 

engineering, chemistry, and other complex sciences, shops twice a week for at least 

an hour, and engages in various other activities. The ALJ correctly determined that 

these activities were inconsistent with Quartucci’s testimony regarding the reasons 

why his depression and anxiety would prevent him from working even a simple, 

unskilled job. 

Quartucci argues that the ALJ erred in assessing his RFC and in relying on a 

vocational expert’s opinion that Quartucci can perform jobs that exist in the 

national economy. For both assertions, however, Quartucci relies on the above 

arguments that the Court has rejected. 

AFFIRMED.