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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2)(C ). 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 E T HE L MAR I E D. HU B B AR D, 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- 35389 D C N o . 0 8 - 1 4 4 6 CRD 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 W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on C a r ol y n R . D i m m i c k, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 8, 2010 ** S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: T A S H IM A , F IS H E R , an dB E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E the l m a r i e H ubba r d appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta f f i rm i ng the d en ial b y th e S o cial S ec u rity C o m m issio n er(“C o m m issio n er ”) o f H u b b ar d ’s ap p l i c a t i o n s f

o rd i s ab i l i tyi n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s a n ds u p p l e me n t a l s e c u r i tyi n c o me



# FI LED MA R 19 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

unde rT i t l e s I I a nd X V I of the S oc i a l S e c ur i tyA c t , 42 U . S . C . §§ 401- 403, 1381- 1 3 8 3 f . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f irm . We r e v i e w de no vo th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e ru p h o ld in g th e d e n ia l o f b e n e f its . H o w a rd ex relW o l f f v. B a rn h a rt , 3 4 1 F . 3 d1 0 0 6 , 1 0 1 1 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). W e m u st uphol d the C om m i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on i f i ti s s upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a nd if th e C o m m is s io n e rap p lie d th e c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d s . I d. H ubba r d c ont e nds tha tthe a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge ( “ A L J ” ) e rr e d a tS t e p 2 of the s e que nt i a l e va l ua t i on pr oc e s s i n f i ndi ng tha the rkne e i nj ury , obe s i ty , a nd hi p, back, and sho ul der pai n w er e notse vere i m pai rm ent s. B ec ause H ub bard prevai l ed atS t ep 2 and because the A L J c on si dere d these al l eged i m pai rm ent s l at er i n the se qu ent i al anal ys i s, w e c on cl ud e thatany e rr or i n o m i tt i ng the al l eged im p a irm e n ts a t S te p 2 w a s h a rm le s s . Se e L e w is v . A s tr ue , 4 9 8 F .3 d9 0 9 , 9 1 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; B u rch v. B a rn h a rt , 40 0 F . 3d 67 6, 68 2 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). H ub bard al so cont ends thatthe A L J e rr ed atS t eps 4 and 5 i n fi nd i ng her “n o t e n tir e lyc r e d ib le ” a n d in im p r o p e r lyw e ig h in g th e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e . W e c on cl ud e thatthe A L J’ s c re di bi l i ty f i nd i ng i s s up po rt ed by spec i fi c, cl ear a nd c onvi nc i ng r e a s ons , i nc l udi ng tha tH ubba r d’ s t e s t i m onyabouthe rde pr e s s i on sy m pt om s w as vagu e and thather dai l y a ct i vi t i es and the obj ec t i ve m edi ca l e v id e n c e w e r e in c o n s is te n t w ith h e rte s tim o n yab o u t th e s e v e r ityo f h e rs y m p to m s .- 3-

A n A L Jm a yp r o p e r lyc o n s id e rth e s e f a c to r s in a s s e s s in g ac la im a n t’s c r e d ib ility . Se e T om m as e t t iv . A s tr ue , 5 3 3 F .3 d1 0 3 5 , 1 0 3 9 - 4 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; B urch , 400 F . 3d a t681. W e a l s o c onc l ude tha tthe A L Jdi d note rri n e va l ua t i ng the m e di c a l opi ni on evi dence. T he A L J gave s peci fi c, l egi t i m at e r ea sons, supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence i n the re cord, for a cc ordi ng l es s w ei gh tt o the do ct ors w ho op i ned that H ub bard w as l i m i t ed t o sedent ary w ork o r “ se vere l y l i m i t ed. ” See L es ter v. Cha ter , 8 1 F .3 d 8 2 1 , 8 3 0 - 3 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ; M ag al lan es v. B ow en , 881 F . 2d 747, 75 1 (9th C i r. 19 89 ). M oreover, the A L J ul t i m at el y f ou nd thatH ub bard’ s abi l i t i es w e r e m or e l i m i t e d tha n s om e othe rdoc t or s opi ne d. W e c onc l ude tha tthe c onf l i c t i ng m e di c a l opi ni on e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d i s a tl e a s ts us c e pt i bl e t o the A L J ’s in te rp r e ta tio n . Se e A n dr e w s v . Sh a la la , 53 F . 3d 10 35 , 10 39 -40 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ( “W e m u s t u p h o ldth e A L J ’s d e c is io n w h e r e th e e v id e n c e is s u s c e p tib le to m or e tha n one r a t i ona l i nt e rpr e t a t i on. ” ( c i t i ng M ag al lan es , 8 8 1 F .2 da t 7 5 0 ) ) . A ff i rm ed .