N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B R UC E P. M U R C HISON, 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. 18-15740 D.C . No. 4:17-c v-00142-EJM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Eric M arkovic h, M a gistra te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2021 * *
B e fore : SILVER

M A N, GR AB ER , a nd C L IFTON, C i rc u it Judge s. C la im ant B ruc e P. M urc hison a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s
a ffirm anc e of the C om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of C la im ant’ s
a pplic a tion for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l soc ia l se c urity 

# FIL ED
FEB 16 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 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).inc o m e unde r Title s II and XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t . W e have jurisdic tion

unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Attm ore v. C olvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th C i r. 2016), a

nd a ffirm
. 1. C ontra ry to C la im ant’ s a

rgum e nt, the ALJ found, a t ste p two, tha

t C la im an t’ s na

rc ole psy is a

se ve re im

pa irm e nt. The ALJ a c c ounte d for na rc ole psy in de te rm ining C la im ant’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (RFC ). 2. The ALJ pe rm issibly disc ounte d in pa rt the opinion of psy c hologic a l
c onsulta tive e xam ine r Dr. Stic ke n. She re a sone d tha t Dr. Stic k e n’ s opinion wa s inc o nsiste nt with C la i m ant’ s spa rse m e nta l he a lth tre atm e nt a nd with thec linic a l findings c onc e rning C la im ant’ s c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , a nd pa c e . Those are pe rm issible re a sons to disc ount a m e dic a l opinion. Se e Tom a s e tti v. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008) (inc onsiste n c y with m e dic a l re c ord); B ay liss v. B arnha rt, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005) (ina de q ua te support in c linic a l findings). Additiona

l ly , the ALJ disc usse d the GAF sc ore provide d by Dr. Stic ke n. The ALJ note d tha

t the sc ore wa s a sse sse d subje c t ive ly and re ve a l e d only a
sna p shot of C la im ant’ s c ondition; she found tha

t the obje c tive de ta i ls of the ove ra ll
re c o rd m o re a c c urate ly

de sc ribe d C la im ant’ s im

pa irm e nts a

nd lim i tations. 3. The ALJ did not re

j e c t or disc ount a

ny opinion from

Dr. R oge rs. Tha

t be ing so, she wa s not re quire d to give c l e ar and c onvinc i ng, or spe c ific and 2le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , for re

je c ting or disc ounting a tre a ting doc tor’ s opinion. Se e Le ste r v. C h a te r, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C i r. 1995) (c le ar and c onvinc ing); Ga rrison v. C o lvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th C i r. 2014) (spe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e ). The de c ision de sc ribe d C la im a

nt’ s four visits to Dr. R

oge rs a nd sum m ariz e d his tre a tm e n t note s. Although the ALJ did not a s sign a spe c ific we ight to Dr. R

oge rs’ opinions, C la im an t doe s not ide ntify any lim ita tion dia gnose d by Dr. R oge rs tha t the ALJ fa ile d to inc orporate into theR FC . The re fore , to the e xte nt tha t the ALJ e rre d in fa iling to a ssign we i ght to Dr. Roge rs’ opinions, tha t e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. Se e M olina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th C ir. 2012) (de fining a n e rror a s ha rm le s s " whe re it is inc onse que ntia l to the ultim a te nondisa bility de te rm ination" (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d)). 4. The ALJ pe rm issibly disc ounte d the de te rm ination of disa bility m a de by the A riz ona

Sta te R e tire m e nt Sy ste m (ASR S). That de te rm ination wa s not binding. Se e 20 C .F.R . § 404.1504 (providing tha t a de c ision by

anothe r gove rnm e nta l a g e nc y a

bout a c la im ant’ s disa

bility or e n title m e nt to be ne fits is not binding be c a

use it is pre m ise d on non-soc ia l se c urity rule s). The ALJ note d

tha t it is unlike l y that " disa

bility ," a s the te rm is use d on the ASR S’ s form , is de c ide d unde r the sa

m e sta nda rds a s a re provide d

in the soc ia l se c urity

sta t ute an d 3re gula

tions. Tha

t is a pe rm issible ground to disc o unt the ASR S’ s c onc l usion. Se e M olina , 674 F.3d a

t 1111 (holding tha

t a n ALJ m ay

disc ount the opinion of a n

" othe r sourc e " if ge rm ane re a sons a re provide d). 5. In his ope ning brie f, C la im ant doe s not c ha l le nge se ve ra l a spe c ts of the ALJ’ s de c ision: the

e va luation of theopinions of Drs. Pa yn e and B oa tm an, State
a ge nc y m e dic a l c onsulta

n ts; the e va luation of theopinion of a Sta te a ge nc y psy c hologic a l c onsulta

nt; the e va luation of the opinion of tre a ting phy sic ia n Dr. Puri; a nd the finding tha

t C l a im ant’ s te stim ony

c o n c e rning the se ve rity

of his lim ita tions wa s not e n tire ly

c re dible due to his a

bility to a tte n d la w sc hool full time
and to pe rform

som e la w-re late d e m

ploy m e nt. Sim ila

rly , C la im a

nt doe s not a

rgue

" spe c ific a lly and distinc tly " a bout his c onte ntion tha

t the ALJ e rre d at ste p thre e . The re fore , C la im ant ha s wa ive d a ny argum e nts c onc e rning thoseissue s . C arm ic kle v. C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . Adm i n., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th C i r. 2008). 6. Fina lly , the ALJ’ s hy

pothe tic a l que s tion to the

voc a tiona l e xpe rt
a de quate ly

a c c ounte d for a ll of the lim ita tions a nd im pa irm e nts tha

t the ALJ pe rm issibly

found we re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord. Se e B ay liss, 427 F.3d a

t 1217–18 (holding tha

t a n ALJ m ay

lim it a hy pothe tic a l to
re stric tions supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord). Ac c ordingly , the ALJ

4prope rly

re lie d on the voc a tiona l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony tha t C la im ant c ould pe rform his pa st re le va

nt work a s a

high sc hool or c olle ge te a c he r. AFFIRM E D.

5