N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FR ED A. LAR SEN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

SOC IAL SEC UR ITY ADM INISTR

ATION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35259 D.C . No. 6:11-c v-06415-TC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aike n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 9, 2014 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER , C HR ISTEN, a nd NGUYEN, C irc u i t Judge s. Fre d A. La

rse n a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the de c ision of the C o m

m issione r of the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion, whic h de nie d his 

# FIL ED
OCT 20 2014 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 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 ora l a

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

pplic ations for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc o m e , pursua nt to Title s II and XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t, 42 U.S.C . §§ 416, 423, 1382c
. 1 W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. The ALJ ga

ve suffic ie ntly

“ c le ar and c onvinc i ng” re a sons, Orn v
. Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 635 (9th C ir. 2007), for finding tha t La rse n’ s te stim ony

wa s not c re dible . The ALJ found tha t se ve ra l of La

rse n’ s subje c t ive c om

p la ints we re not c onsiste nt with m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord. Se e Parra v . Astrue , 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th C ir. 2007) (noting tha t subje c tive te s tim ony

re ga rding pa in c a

n be prope rly re je c te d by the ALJ if c ontra dic te d by m e dic a l re ports or othe r e vide nc e ). De spite La

rse n’ s c om

pla int of c arpa l tunne l sy

ndrom e , Dr. Nola

n wa s “ una

ble to find phy sic a l findings supportive of a dia gnosis of c a

rpa l tunne l sy

ndrom e . ” R e ga rding La rse n’ s re ports of ba c k a

nd le g pa in, a

phy s ic a l e xam ination showe d that La rse n’ s hips, kne e s, fe e t a

nd a nkle s we re “ non te nde r with ra nge of m otion
and pa lpita

tion,” and La

rse n wa s “ a ble to a m b ulate on his toe s a

n d he e ls without proble m s.” M RI im a ging of La rse n ’ s spine did not re ve a l a ny ste nosis, a

nd M R I im a ging of his kne e and hip wa s “ norm a l.” Additional ly , the ALJ found tha t Larse n “ e nga ge [d] in da ily

a c t ivitie s inc onsiste nt with [his] a lle g e d sy m ptom s.”

1 The Appe a ls C o unc i l de nie d La rse n’ s re que st for re vie w. Thus, theALJ’ s de c ision be c am e the fina l de c i sion of theAc ting C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity for purpose s of this a

ppe a l. Se e 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.981, 416.1481.

2Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting Linge nfe lte r v .

Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1040 (9th C ir. 2007)). In pa rtic ula r, La rse n sa id tha

t he
c ould pre pa

re m e a ls, shop for groc e rie s, drive , and lift ba gs of pe t food we ighing
a pproxim ate l y

16 pounds. La

rse n a lso visite d C olora do in 2009, a nd pe rform e d lim ite d work in 2002 a

nd 2004. 2. The ALJ provide d “ spe c ific and le gitim ate re a s ons tha t a re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e ,” Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005), for re je c ting the opinions of Drs. Oe lke an d Nola n. B oth opinions re lie d

“ to a la rge e xte nt on [La

rse n’ s] se lf-re ports tha

t [we re ] prope rly disc o unte d a s inc re dible .” Tomasse tti v
. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). In c ontra st, the opinions of Drs. Ke hrli a nd Ha bja n we re
c onsiste n t with thege ne ra l la c k of obje c tive e vide nc e in the re c ord c onc e rning the
se ve rity of La rse n’ s a lle ge d sy

m ptom s. Se e Tonape t

y an v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th C ir. 2001) (noting tha t “ the c ontra

ry opinion of a non-e xam ining m e dic a l
e xpe rt . . . m ay

c onstitute

substa ntia l e vide nc e whe n it is c o nsiste nt with other inde pe nde nt e vide nc e in the re c ord.” ). 3. The “ phy s ic a l func tiona l c a pa c ity que stionna ire ” inc orporat e d into the
re c o rd by the Appe a ls C ounc il doe s not re quire re m and. This que stionna ire is substa ntia lly ide n tic a l to a que stionna ire c onside re d, a nd re je c te d, by the ALJ. The
3e sse ntia l diffe re nc e be twe e n the two doc um e nts is tha t the latte r inc orporat e d
ve rsion a ppe ars to be c o-signe d by Dr. Nixon, tra

nsform ing it into a

n opinion of a

n

“ a c c e pta b le m e dic a l sourc e .” Se e 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1513(a ), 416.913(a ). Suc h opinions may

only be re je c te d for “ spe c ific , le gitim at e re a sons.” Se e Molina , 674 F.3d at 1111. The se re a sons, provide d by the ALJ in re

je c ting theprior ve rsion of the q ue stionna i re , inc lude : (1) the a sse ssm e nt is not c onsiste nt with La rse n’ s
m e dic a l re c ords a s a

whole , se e Parra , 481 F.3d a t 750; (2) thefindings re ly he avily on La

rse n’ s own re p orts of his sy m ptom s , s e e Tomasse tti , 533 F.3d a t 1041; a nd (3) the a sse ssm e nt is in “ c he c k the box” form at, i.e ., it is “ brie f [and]
c onc lusory ,” se e Bay liss , 427 F.3d a t 1216. 4. The ALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a p a c ity (“ RFC ” ) de te rm ination a nd
a ssoc iate d hy

pothe tic a l que s tions a ske d at the he aring a re supporte d by

substa ntia l
e vide nc e . The opinions of Drs. Ke hlri a nd Ha bja n supporte d the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t La rse n ha s the R

FC to pe rform

“ m e d ium work.” And the ALJ’ s hy pothe t ic a l que stions, pose d to the voc ationa l e xpe rt at the he aring, “ c onta ine d a ll of the lim ita

tions tha t the ALJ found c re dible and supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e in the re c ord,” s e e id. at 1217, be c a use the y inc orporate d se ve ra l possible RFC ’ s , with them ost stre nuous onebe ing “ m e d ium work,” a s re c o m

m e n de d by Dr. Ke hrli a

nd a ffirm e d by

Dr. Ha bja n . 4AFFIRM E D
.

5