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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. ANDREW

M . SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-35124 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-05100-TSZ 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 T hom a s S. Zilly , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 2, 2021 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M OSKOW ITZ, ** Distric t Judge . Appe lla

nt Ly nda Ta nie lu (Ta nie l u) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the de nia l of Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc om e be ne fits by

Appe l le e 

# FIL ED

MAR 10 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Honora

ble B arry Te d M oskowitz , Unite d

State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.C om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, and we a ffirm

the C om m issione r’ s de n ia l of be ne fits. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the de te rm ination of thea dm inistra tive la w judge (ALJ) tha

t Ta nie l u wa s not disa

ble d be c a use she wa s c a

pa ble of pe rform ing se de nta ry work with c e rta in limita

tions re sulting from

he r phy sic a l a

nd m e nta l im pa irm e nts. Although the ALJ a rgua bly e rre d in disc ounting the

opinions of two e xam ining psy c h ologists on the ba sis of Ta

nie lu’ s se lf-re porting, s e e Buc k v . Be rry h ill , 869 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th C ir. 2017), the ALJ none the le s s provide d a dditiona l spe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons for providing “ lim ite d we ight” to the se opinions. The se re a sons inc lude d Ta nie lu’ s routine an d c onse rvative m e nta l he a lth tre a tm e n t, suc c e ssful use of m e dic ation for he r m e nta l c ondition, a n d the m ore re c e nt opinion of a

n e xam ining psy c hologist who dete rm ine d tha t Ta nie l u wa s c a pa ble of pe rform ing a

n a rray of da ily a c tivitie s. Spe c ific a lly , tha t psy c hologist de te rm i ne d tha

t he r “ thought proc e ss a

ppe are d c le ar and inta c t

during the e va luation;” she did not ha ve a history

of psy c hiatric hospita liz at ions; she a c knowle dge d tha

t he r m e dic a tion “ h e lps he r m ood;” and she “ c ould not te ll [the e xam ining psy c h ologist] the la st tim e she ha d a m a jor de pre ssive e pisode .” Se e Ford v . Saul , 950 F.3d 1141, 1155-56 (9th C ir. 2020) (e xpla ining tha t “ [i] f the opinion of a

n e xam i ning doc tor is c ontra dic te d by anothe r doc tor, it c an only be 2re

je c te d for spe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons tha t a re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord,” an d tha t “ the c o urt will uphold the ALJ’ s c onc l usion whe n the e vide n c e is susc e ptible to m ore tha n one ra tiona l inte rpre tation” ) (c ita tions, a lte ra tion, a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). The ALJ did not err in c onside ring the e va luation pe rform e d by an a dva nc e d re giste re d nurse pra c t itione r (AR NP). Although the

ALJ did not e xplic itly re fe re n c e the AR

N P ’ s sta t e m e nt tha

t Ta nie lu would beuna

ble to e nga ge in fulltim e e m p loy m e nt for six m onths, theALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (RFC ) finding wa s c onsiste nt with the opinion of a n e x am ining phy s ic ia

n tha t Ta nie lu wa s a ble to pe rform

light work. The

ALJ a dopte d a

n e ve n m ore c a

utious a pproa c h, de te rm i ning tha

t pe rform anc e of light work m ight e xc e e d Ta

nie lu’ s c a pa bilitie s, and a sse ssing a

R FC for le ss de m anding se de nta ry work. As a

re sult, theAR

NP’ s sta te m e nt c onc e rning thee xte nt of Ta n ie lu’ s disa

bility wa s not dispositive

in light of the othe r m e dic a l e vide nc e . Se e Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2008) (a

rtic ulating tha

t “ the c ourt will not reve rse an ALJ’ s de c ision for ha rm le s s e rror, whic h e xists whe n it is c le ar from the re c ord tha

t the ALJ’ s e rror wa s inc onse que ntia l to theultim a te nondisa bility de te rm ination” ) (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Substa ntia l e vide n c e supports the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Ta nie lu’ s phy sic a l im

pa i rm e n ts did not preve nt he r from 3pe rform i ng se de nta ry work with c e rta in limita

tions. The ALJ re vie we d the re c ords of e a c h m e dic a l provide r and re solve d a ny disc re pa n c ie s in the m e dic a l opinions. Se e Ahe arn v . Saul , No. 19-35774, – F.3d –, 2021 W L 609825, a

t *2 (9th C ir. Fe b. 17, 2021) (sta

ting tha t “ [t] he ALJ is re sponsiblefor de t e rm ining c re dibility , re solving c onflic ts in m e dic a l te stim ony , and for re solving a m biguitie s,” and “ we re ve rse only

if the ALJ’ s de c i sion wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c o rd a s a

whole ” ) (c ita

tions a nd a lte ra t ion om itte d). The ALJ a lso provide d the re quisite“ s pe c ific , c le ar, an d c onvinc i ng re a s ons” for disc ounting Ta n ie lu’ s te stim ony

tha t he r phy sic a l a

nd m e nta l im pa irm e nts e ntire ly pre c lude d he r from e nga ging in work a c tivitie s. Tommase tti , 533 F.3d a

t 1039 (c ita

tion omitte d). Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Ta nie lu “ re c e ive d ve ry

littletre atm e nt ove ra ll” for he r m e nta l c ondition, a

nd the obje c tive m e dic a l e vide n c e did not support Ta nie lu’ s te stim ony c onc e rning the se v e rity

of he r im pa irm e nts. Ta

nie lu a c knowle dge d tha

t he r de pre s sion m e d ic a tion wa s working, a nd the m e nta l he a lth tre atm e nt note s do not support these ve re lim ita

tions to which Ta

nie lu te s tifie d. Se e id. (re c ogniz ing tha t c onse rvative m e d ic a l tre atm e n t is a c le ar and c onvinc ing re a son to disc ount te stim ony re ga rding se ve rity

of a n im pa irm e n t). AFFIRM E D. 4