N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SVEN E. SAM PSON,

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. 18-35299 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-05359-M AT
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 M ary Alic e The ile r, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 8, 2020 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : GILM AN, *** C ALLAHAN, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
OCT 13 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 R ona ld Le e Gilm a

n , Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc u it, sitting by de signa tion.Sve n Sam pson a p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of his a pplic a tion for disa

bility be ne fits. W e m ay se t a side a de n ia l of be ne fits only if it is unsupporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e or the a dm inistra tive la w judge (ALJ) a

pplie d the wrong le ga l sta nda rd. Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012) (c iting Stone v . He c k le r , 761 F.2d 530, 531 (9th C ir. 1985)). B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c ts, we
re c o unt the m

only a s ne c e ssa

ry to re solve the argum e nts on a ppe a l. 1. Sa m

pson c onte nds tha

t the ALJ e rre d by

im prope rly we ighing the
m e dic a l -opinion e vide nc e . Sa m pson c la im s the ALJ im

prope rly re je c t e d the opinion of Dr. Holsm

an-C a se y . W e disa gre e . The ALJ disc usse d Dr. Holsm anC a se y ’ s e va luation in gre a t de ta il, noting tha t Dr. Holsm an-C a se y ’ s opinion wa s
c onsiste n t with thefindings m a de by Nurse Te ll a

nd Dr. Gross. Sa m

pson a rgue s that the ALJ e rre d by fa i ling to e xpla in wha t we ight she a c c orde d to Dr. Holsm anC a se y . This e rror wa s ha rm le ss. It is a

ppa re n t the ALJ ga

v e Dr. Holsm an-C a se y ’ s opinion signific ant we ight a nd re lie d on it throughout he r de c ision be c a

use it wa s
c onsiste n t with there c ords from Nurse Te ll a

n d Dr. Gross, whic h supporte d a finding tha

t Sam pson wa s not disa

ble d. Sa m pson a lso a

rgue s the ALJ e rre d whe n she gave signific ant we ight to the opinions of Dr. Ta

ne nha u s, a non-tre a ting, non-e xam ining psy c hiatrist, a nd
2to Dr. C lifford, a non-tre a ting, non-e xam ining psy c hologist, who both te stifie d at his 2013 he aring. The ALJ found Dr. C lifford’ s a nd Dr. Ta n e nha u s’ s opinions
we re c onsiste nt with other e vide nc e in the re c o rd tha t showe d Sam

pson’ s
c ontinue d im

prove m e nt. Se e Tonape ty an v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th C ir. 2001) (re c ogniz ing tha

t a non-e xam ine r’ s opinion m ay am ount to substa

ntia l
e vide nc e “ whe n it is c onsiste nt with other inde pe nde nt e vide n c e in the re c ord” ). The ALJ e rre d whe n she sta te d Dr. Ta

ne nha us ha d he ard Sa m

pson’ s te s tim ony ; Dr. Ta ne nha us disc onne c te d from the he aring prior to Sa m pson’ s te stim ony . B ut this e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be c a

use the ALJ a lso ba se d he r de c ision to give signific ant
we ight to Dr. Ta

ne nha us’ s te stim ony

on the fa c t tha

t he “ ha d the opportunity

to
re vie w a l l of the c la im a

n t’ s m e nta l im

pa irm e nts.” Sa m pson c onte nds tha

t the ALJ e rre d by

re je c t ing the VA’ s August 2013 disa bility ra ting. The ALJ ga

ve no we ight to the

VA’ s ra tings for a

n xie ty and
m igra ine s, but c ite d “ pe rsua sive , spe c ific , [and] va lid re a s ons for doing so tha t a re supporte d by the re c ord.” Mc C arte y v . Massanari , 298 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th C ir. 2002) (c iting C

hambliss v . Massanari , 269 F.3d 520, 522 (5th C ir. 2001)). Dr. Holsm an-C a s e y

opine d tha

t Sam pson did not m

e e t the dia gnostic re q

uire m e nts for PTSD and tha

t his a nxie ty would not pre c lude workpla c e and soc i a l inte ra c tion. Sa m pson re porte d his m i gra ine s we re only oc c a siona l a

nd ha d no im

pa c t on his
3work. Give n the disc re pa nc ie s be t we e n the VA rat ing a

nd the obje c t ive obse rva tions in the

re c o rd a va ila ble to the ALJ, the ALJ’ s tre a tm e nt of the VA
ra ting wa s not e rror. Sa m pson a rgue s the ALJ e rre d by

fa iling to disc

uss Dr. Horn’ s 2007 opinion
and Dr. W idla

n ’ s 2010 opinion. The se opinions pre da te d the re le va nt pe riod by two y e ars or m o re , a

nd a re thus “ of lim ite d

re l e va nc e .” C armic k le v . C omm’r, SSA , 533 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th C ir. 2008). The ALJ’ s fa ilure to disc uss Dr. Horn’ s
and Dr. W idla

n ’ s opinions wa s at m o st ha rm l e ss e rror give n the ir re m o te ne ss to the
re le va nt pe riod. Sa m pson a rgue s tha t the ALJ m isa

pplie d the doc trine of re s judic a ta . B ut on
re m and from

the distric t c ourt, the ALJ did not a pply a pre sum p tion of nondisa bility . The distric t c o urt’ s opinion a lso note d tha t Sam p son ha d not de ve lope d his re s judic ata

argum e nt. On a

ppe a l, he doe s not do m ore to a rtic ulate it. 2. Sa m

pson a rgue s the ALJ e rre d by

disc ounting his te stim ony de sc ribing his subje c tive sy m ptom s. The ALJ found Sa m pson’ s m e dic a lly de te rm i na ble im pa irm e nts c ould re a sona

bly be e xpe c te d to c a

use som e of his
a lle ge d sy m ptom s , but provide d c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for disc o unting Sa m pson’ s te stim ony a

bout his lim

ita tions. In pa

rtic ula r, the ALJ c ite d

spe c ific inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n Sam pson’ s te stim ony

and the sy

m ptom s he de sc ribe d to
4his c are provide rs, a nd furthe r inc onsiste nc i e s be twe e n his te stim ony

and the da i ly
a c tivitie s re fle c te d in Sa

m pson’ s m e dic a l re c ords. This wa s not e rror. S e e Linge n fe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th C ir. 2007). Sim ila rly , the ALJ gave ge rm a

ne re a s ons for disre ga

rding the te stim ony

of Sam pson’ s wife
. Se e Bay liss v

. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005); Le w is v . Apfe l , 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th C ir. 2001). 3. Sa m

pson a rgue s the ALJ e rre d by

fa iling to inc lude a ll of the lim ita tions de sc ribe d by the phy sic ia ns in the R

FC finding. TheALJ prope rly inc l ude d only

the lim ita

tions in the

R FC tha t she found c re d ible and supporte d by the re c ord, so no e rror oc c urre d. Se e Bay liss , 427 F.3d a t 1217. AFFIRM E D.

5