N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HEATHER B A UM AN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M AR TIN J. O’ M ALLEY, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 22-35881 D.C . No. 4:20-c v-05228-JAG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s A. Goe ke , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 29, 2024 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , PARKER , *** and M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s . 

# F IL ED APR 3 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Unite d State s C irc u i t Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Se c ond C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.He a the r M . B a um an (“ B a

um an” ) a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing
an a d m inistra tive la w judge ’ s (“ ALJ” ) de nia l of he r a pplic a tions for Disa

bility Insura nc e B e ne fits (“ DIB ” ) and Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc om e (“ SSI” ). On
a ppe a l, B a um an c onte nds tha

t the ALJ e rre d

by (1) im prope rly invoking the pre s um ption of c ontinuing non-disa bility an d a dopting the

prior ALJ’ s findings a

t ste p two, step thre e and ste p five ; (2) im prope rly re

je c t ing B a

um an’ s subje c tive
c om pla i nts; (3) im

prope rly e va luating m e dic a l opinion e vide nc e ; a nd (4) fa iling to de ve lop the re c ord. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to a ffirm the Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion’ s de te rm i nation. Moorev . C o mm’r of Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th C ir. 2002). W e “ will disturb the de nia l of be ne fits only if the de c ision c o nta ins le ga l
e rror or is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .” Lambe rt v . Saul , 980 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th C ir. 2020) (quoting Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2008)). W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt. The pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s in this c a se , a nd we re c ount the m

only
a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla i n our de c ision. 1. B a um an wa s de nie d disa

bility be ne fits by

an ALJ on Fe b ruary

1, 2017. B a um an re a pplie d for DIB and SSI in Ja nua ry 2018. Pursua

nt to C hav e z v . Bow e n , 2844 F.2d 691, 693 (9th C ir. 1988), a n d Ac quie sc e nc e R

uling 97-4(9), a

prior
a djudic a tion c re a te s a

pre s um ption of c ontinuing non-disa bility for the pe riod unde r a djudic a tion unle ss the c la im ant shows tha t the re are “ c ha

nge d
c irc um s ta nc e s .” The ALJ he ld tha

t the C hav e z pre sum p tion wa s “ re butte d only

in
a thre shold se nse b y

a ddition of some ne w non-se ve re im pa irm e nts a

nd nonm e dic a l ly de te rm i na

ble im pa irm e nts.” Howe ve r, the ALJ found tha t B a um an ha d not produc e d ne wand m a te ria l e vide nc e of worse n e d im pa i rm e nts. The ALJ the re fore a dopte d m any

of the prior ALJ’ s findings in the subse que nt five -ste p se que n tia l e va l uation pursua nt to Ac quie sc e nc e R

uling 97-4(9). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t the re we re not
m a te ria l c ha

nge s in B a

um a n ’ s c ondition sinc e the prior a d j udic a tion. B a

um an c ite s upda te d m e dic a l e vide nc e , but the re is a lso e vide nc e in re c ord, disc usse d by the ALJ, indic a ting tha

t he r c ondition did not m

a t e ria l ly c ha n ge d sinc e the prior de c ision. “ If the e vide nc e ‘ i s susc e ptible to m ore tha n one ra tiona l inte rpre tation, it is the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha t m u st be uphe ld.’ ” Ford v
. Saul , 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th C ir. 2020) (quoting Burc h v . Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th C ir. 2005)); Andre w s v . Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ The ALJ is re sponsible for re solving c o n flic ts in m e dic a l te stim ony [.] ” ). W e the re fore c o nc l ude tha t substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s c onc lusions tha

t the re we re no m at e ria l
3c ha

nge s in B a

um an’ s c ondition re le v ant to its a n a ly sis a t ste p two, step thre e and ste p five
. 2. The ALJ provide d “ spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing” re a sons for re je c ting B a um an ’ s subje c tive te stim ony . Lambe rt , 980 F.3d a t 1277 (quoting Brow n -Hunte r v . C

olv i n , 806 F.3d 487, 488–89 (9th C ir. 2015)). Afte r a ddre ssing B a um an ’ s te stim ony

in de ta i l, the ALJ re a s ona bly c onc lude d tha

t B a um an’ s subje c tive a lle gations we re at odds with her c linic a l e xam inations a nd othe r obje c tive e v ide nc e in the re c ord. 3. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the ALJ’ s a sse ssm e n t of Nurse Pra c titione r Ashle y C hriste n se n’ s le tte r. As the ALJ note d, C hriste nse n’ s brie f state m e nt la c ke d a ny supportiveobje c tive e xpla nation, indic a te d only

short-te rm

c onstra ints,
and c ontra dic te d findings m a de by the State a ge nc y

m e d ic a l c o nsulta

nts. 4. An ALJ’ s obliga

tion to de ve lop the re c ord “ is trigge re d only whe n the re is a m biguous e vide nc e or whe n the re c ord is ina de quat e to a llow for prope r e va luation of thee vide nc e .” Ford, 950 F.3d a t 1156 (quoting May e

s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th C i r. 2001)). No suc h showing ha s be e n m a de
. Furthe rm ore , B a

um an’ s attorne y

at the he aring ne ve r a ske d the ALJ to obtai n m e dic a l e xpe rt te stim ony , e ve n though a m e d ic a l e xpe rt wa s on sta ndby to te stify if
re quire d.
4AFFIRM E D.

5