NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRI PLUMB, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-15488 

D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08223-JJT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 9, 2023

Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: GRABER, BENNETT, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Terri Plumb appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of 

Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We affirm.

Ms. Plumb raises one issue on appeal. She argues that the Administrative Law 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

MAR 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Judge (“ALJ”) erred by giving “little weight” to the medical opinion of her treating 

physician, Dr. Retay, who found that Ms. Plumb has significant functional 

limitations. The ALJ instead relied on the medical opinions of two non-examining 

Social Security Administration (“SSA”) physicians who found that Ms. Plumb can 

perform light work. 

If another doctor contradicts a treating physician’s opinion, “the ALJ may 

discount the treating physician’s opinion by giving specific and legitimate reasons 

that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 

1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 

2021) (quoting Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded 

by regulation on other grounds). The ALJ gave adequate reasons for discounting Dr. 

Retay’s opinion based on substantial evidence in the record.

The ALJ gave four reasons for discounting the opinion: (1) Dr. Retay did not 

perform in-depth physical examinations to support her opinion; (2) Dr. Retay did not 

rely on enough objective evidence to support the “extreme” limitations she attributed 

to Ms. Plumb; (3) Dr. Retay is not entitled to higher weight as an orthopedic or 

neurological specialist; and (4) the SSA physicians’ opinions were more consistent 

with Ms. Plumb’s “routine and conservative care.” The ALJ’s first reason was not 
3 

supported by substantial evidence because Dr. Retay’s treatment notes show that she

gave Ms. Plumb nine physical examinations before issuing her medical opinion. The 

ALJ’s other reasons, however, are based on enough evidence that “a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate.” Ahearn, 988 F.3d at 1115. In particular, after considering 

and summarizing the medical record evidence, the ALJ reasonably found that Ms. 

Plumb’s “treatment remained the same throughout the relevant period,” which 

supports “the conclusion that [Ms. Plumb] remained capable of performing her past 

work.” See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the 

ALJ properly discounted a treating physician’s “extreme” opinion when the 

physician “prescribed a conservative course of treatment”).

AFFIRMED.