T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T VI C T ORH. MOND R AG ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C om m i s s i one rof S oc i a l S e c ur i tyA dm i ni s tr a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 35408 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 1 3 4 - MA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M a l c ol m F . M a r s h, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry2, 2010 ** S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: R Y M E R , G O U L D an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. V i c t orM ondr a gon appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta f f i rm i ng the C o m m is s io n e ro f

S o c ia l S e c u r ity ’s d e n ia l o f h is ap p lic a tio n f

o rS o c ia l S e c u r ity 

# FI LED FEB 04 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST h e p a rtie s a r e f a m ilia rw ith th e f

a c tu a l a n d p r o c e d u r a l h is to ryo f th is 1 ca se and w e do n otre coun ti ti n d et ai l here . 2 D i s abi l i tyI ns ur a nc e a nd S uppl e m e nt a l S e c ur i tyI nc om e unde rT i t l e s I I a nd X V I of th e So c i a l Se c u r i tyA c t . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f f i rm. M on dragon ar gu es thatthe A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw Judg e ( “ A L J” ) e rr ed atst ep tw o b y f in d in g th a t h e w a s n o t s e v e r e lyim p a ir e d b yd e p r e s s io n a n d c h r o n ic p a in di sorder . A ny al l eged err or atst ep tw o w as harm l es s bec ause st ep tw o w as

1 d e c id e d in M o n d r a g o n ’s f a v o rw ith r e g a r d to o th e ra ilm e n ts . See B urch v. B a rn h a rt , 4 0 0 F. 3 d 6 7 6 , 6 8 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . M o n d r a g o n a r g u e s th a tth i s b e c a me p re ju d icial err o r a t step fo u r b ec au se th e A L J d idn o t co n sid erM o n d ra g o n ’s d e p r e s s io n o rc h r o n ic p a in in d e te rm in in g h is r e s id u a l f u n c tio n a l c ap a c ity( “R F C ” ) . W e d i s a g r e e . Th e A LJs p e c i f i c a l l ys t a t e d th a th e w a s c o n s i d e r i n g “ a l l s y mp t o ms a nd the e xt e ntt o w hi c h the s e s y m pt om s c a n r e a s onabl ybe a c c e pt e d a s c ons i s t e nt w i th the obj ec t i ve m edi ca l evi dence and other e vi dence. ” T he A L J f ou nd that M on dragon ’ s “ m ent al cond i t i on s are m edi ca l l y i nd et erm i nabl e or non -s ever e” base d o n D r. L yon’ s f

i nd i ng thatM on dragon w as m al i ng er i ng , vari ou s r eport s that M on dragon exaggerat ed hi s s ym pt om s t o h i s doct ors, and D r. S m i th’ s opi ni on that M o n d r a g o n d id n o t h a v e am a jo rp s y c h ia tr ic c o n d itio n th a t w o u ld p r e v e n t h im f r o m r e tu rn in g to w o rk .3

T h e AL J ’ s R F C d e t e rm i n a t i o n i s s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . An R F C is in h e r e n tlya n a s s e s s m e n t o f ac la im a n t’s lim ita tio n s r e s u ltin g f r o m h is m e d ic a llyd e te rm in ab le im p a irm e n ts , a n d M o n d r a g o n d id n o t h a v e a n ym e d ic a lly de t e rm i nabl e i m pa i rm e nttha tw oul d l i m i thi s abi l i tyt o s us t a i n w ork a c t i vi tyon a r e g u la ra n d c o n tin u in g b a s is . T h u s , a n yf a ilu r e o n th e p a rt o f

th e A L Jto spec i fi ca l l y di sc uss M on dragon ’ s abi l i ty t o sust ai n thi s ki nd of w ork act i vi ty w as at m o s t h a rm le s s e rr o r . C

f . R eddi ck v. Cha ter , 157 F . 3d 715, 724–25 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng A L Jm us tc ons i de rabi l i tyt o s us t a i n r e gul a rw ork a c t i vi tyw he r e c l a i m a nt w a s i m pa i r e d byC hr oni c F a t i gue S y ndr om e ) . M ondr a gon w a s r e s pons i bl e f or pr ovi di ng the e vi de nc e us e d t o m a ke the R F C de t e rm i na t i on, 20 C . F . R . §§ 4 0 4 .1 5 4 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) , 4 1 6 .9 4 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) , a n d th e A L Jw a s n o t r e q u ir e d to c r e d it M o n d r a g o n ’s s u b

je c tiv e c o m p la in ts o n th is is s u e w ith o u t o b je c tiv e e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt h is c la im s , se e M ag al lan es v. B ow en , 8 8 1 F .2 d 7 4 7 , 7 5 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . T he A L Ja l s o pr ope r l ya s s e s s e d M ondr a gon’ s r e a c hi ng l i m i t a t i ons a nd a dopt e d the o p in io n o f

D r . J o h n s o n th a t M o n d r a g o n w a s lim ite d to n o o v e rh e a d r e a c h in g w ith h is r ig h t u p p e re x tr e m ity . See B a yl iss v. B a rn h a rt , 42 7 F . 3d 12 11 , 12 17 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). T he A L J gave s peci fi c and l egi t i m at e r ea sons, supp ort ed by subst ant i al e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d, f orr e j e c t i ng the c ontr a di c t e d opi ni on of D r . C z a rne c ki , on4

w h ic h th e r e w a s c o m p e tin g m e d ic a l e v id e n c e . See L es terv. Cha ter , 81 F . 3d 821, 8 3 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e A L Jf o u n d D r . C z arn e c k i’s o p in io n w a s in c o n s is te n t w ith m o s t o f th e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e , in c lu d in g a2 0 0 3 p h y s ic a l c ap a c itye v a lu a tio n , a 2 0 0 4 r e s id u a l f

u n c tio n a l c ap a c itya s s e s s m e n t, a n d tw o n e rv e c o n d u c tio n s tu d ie s . See B at son v. C om m ’r of

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 359 F . 3d 1190, 1195 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng i nc ons i s t e nc yw i th m e di c a l e vi de nc e as pe c i f i c a nd l e gi t i m a t e r e a s on f or r e j e c t i ng tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n’ s opi ni on) . A nya l l e ge d ove r - r e l i a nc e bythe A L Jon th e in f r e q u e n c yo f

M o n d r a g o n ’s v is its to D r . C z a rn e c k i w a s a t m o s t h a rm le s s e rr o r . See Stou t v. C om m ’r , 45 4 F . 3d 10 50 , 10 55 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). T he A L J ’ s f

i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng M ondr a gon’ s a l l e ga t i ons of de pr e s s i on a nd chroni c pai n d i sorderar e s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. T he A L J di sc usse d the re l evantm edi ca l evi dence re l at ed t o these al l eged i m pai rm ent s and det erm i ned tha ta ny de pr e s s i on orc hr oni c pa i n di s or de rdi d noti m pos e f unc t i ona l l i m i t a t i ons i n e xc e s s of

M ondr a gon’ s phy s i c a l i m pa i rm e nt s . T o the e xt e ntthe A L Jdi d not di s c us s s pe c i f

i c s t a t e m e nt s m a de byD r . W i c he r , D r . M i l l e r , a nd D r . C z a rne c ki , the A L J w as no tre qu i re d t o d i sc uss tho se st at em ent s w hen thei r s ub st ance w as a d e q u a te lyr e p r e s e n te d b yth e e v id e n c e th e A L Jd id d is c u s s . See V i ncent v. H ec kler , 73 9 F . 2d 13 93 , 13 94 –9 5 (9th C i r. 19 84 ) ( per c uri am ) ( ho l di ng that e vi de nc e tha ti s nots i gni f i c a ntorpr oba t i ve ne e d notbe e xpl i c i t l ydi s c us s e d bythe5

A L J ) . N ordoe s the ne w e vi de nc e i n the f orm of D r . R os e nbaum ’ s di a gnos e s of f unc t i ona l ove r l a ya nd s om a t of orm di s or de r— w hi c h w e r e m a de a f t e rthe he a r i ng b e f o r e th e A L J

— c h a n g e o u ra n a ly s is . D r . R o s e n b au m ’s o p in io n is e n tir e ly c o n s is te n t w ith th e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e th a t w a s in th e r e c o r d b e f o r e th e A L J . M ondr a gon ha s the r e f

or e notde m ons tr a t e d a“ r e a s onabl e pos s i bi l i ty ” tha tthe out c om e of

hi s he a r i ng w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e ntha d D r . R os e nbaum ’ s opi ni on b e e n a d d e d to th e m ix . M a yes v. M a ssa n a ri , 2 7 6 F .3 d 4 5 3 , 4 6 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T he A L Ja l s o pr ope r l yc ons i de r e d a nd c r e di t e d the l a yt e s t i m ony of M on dragon ’ s w i fe . T he A L J am pl y di sc usse d the tw o thi rd-party r eport s s he s ubm i tt e d. T he A L Jw a s notr e qui r e d t o di s c us s e ve rys t a t e m e ntm a de by M o n d r a g o n ’s w if

e to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e ro b s e rv a tio n s h a d b e e n p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d a n d c r e d ite d . See H o w a rd ex rel . W

o l f f v. B a rn h a rt , 341 F . 3d 1006, 1012 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng tha ta n A L Jne e d notdi s c us s “ e ve rypi e c e of e vi de nc e ” i n or de rt o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe A L Jdi d not“ s e l e c t i ve l ya na l y z e ” the evi dence). F i na l l y , the A L J ’ s f

i ndi ng tha tM ondr a gon c oul d pe r f orm hi s pa s tr e l e va nt w o rk is su p p o rted b y s u b stan ti al ev id en ce an d is fr ee fr o m leg al erro r. T h e A L J’s hypothe t i c a l t o the voc a t i ona l e xpe rtc orr e c t l yc ont a i ne d a l l l i m i t a t i ons tha tthe A L Jf o u n d w e r e s u p p o rte d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See M ag al lan es , 88 1 F . 2d atM on dragon ar gu es thatthe D O T defi ni t i on of cann ery w orker s t at es that 2 th e j o b req u i res reach i n g “ 2 / 3 ” o f th e t i m e, b u tth i s i s actu al l y p arto f a d at ab ase c a t e goryf

orthe G ui de f

orO c c upat i onal

E x plor at i on , a n d i s n o tp a rto f th e DO T o c c u p a tio n a l d e f

in itio n . See D O T A p p e n d ix C , av ai lable at h ttp : //w w w . o a l

j . d o l . g o v /P U B L I C /D O T /R E F E R E N C E S /D O T A P P C . H T M. 6 756–57. I n de t e rm i ni ng tha tM ondr a gon c oul d pe r f orm hi s pa s tr e l e va ntw ork, the A L J assessed M o n d rag o n ’ s R F C , fo u n d th atM o n d rag o n ’ s p astrel ev an tw o rkas a c a nne ryw orke ri s “ r a t e d a tthe l i ghte xe rt i ona l l e ve l a nd i s uns ki l l e d, ” a nd f ound tha tM ondr a gon c oul d pe r f orm tha tj ob w i th hi s c urr e ntR F C . T hos e f i ndi ngs s a tis f y th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

S o c ia l S e c u r ityR u lin g ( “S S R ” ) 8 2 - 6 2 . See P i nto v. M a ssa n a ri , 24 9 F . 3d 84 0, 84 5 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng S S R 82 -62 and ho l di ng that the A L J m ustfi nd cl ai m ant ’ s R F C , the ph ys i ca l and m ent al dem ands of hi s or her p a s tr e l e v a n two rk , a n d th e r e l a t i o n o f h i s o rh e rRF C t o th e p a s two rk ) . Th e ALJ corr ec t l y c on si dere d the D i ct i o n a ry o f O ccu p a t i o n a l T i t les ( “ D O T ” ) de f

i ni t i on of

“ cann ery w orker” and the t es t i m on y of the vo ca t i on al expertand fou nd no confl i ct b e tw e e n th e m. Se e id. a t 8 4 5

– 4 6 ( o b s e rv in g th a t “th e b e s t s o u r c e f o rh o w ajo b is 2 general l y per form ed” i s usual l y the D O T , and thatvo ca t i on al expertt es t i m on y c an al so be consi dere d i n the st ep four anal ys i s) . AF F I RME D.