N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R IC HARD ALLEN THOR SNES,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r, Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 13-36096 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-05229-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 A. The ile r, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 30, 2016 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GOODW IN, SC HR OEDER , a nd M c KEOW

N, C irc uit Judge s. R ic ha rd Alle n Thorsne s a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion’ s (“ SSA” ) de nia l of his



# FIL ED SEP 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a

pplic ation for Soc ia l Se c urity Disa bility Insura nc e be ne fits for the pe riod of M arc h 2009 through Ja

nua ry 2011. B e c a

use the a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) prope rly we ighe d the e vide nc e to de t e rm ine that Thorsne s wa s not disa b le d prior to his 55th birthda

y unde r the te rm s of the Soc i a l Se c urity Ac t, 42 U.S.C
. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c (a )(3), we a ffirm
. W e re v ie w the ALJ’ s findings of fa c t for substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord
and the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision denovo. May e s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 458–59 (9th C ir. 2001). Thee xc e rpts of re c ord in this c a se are se a le d, so our disposition doe s not re pe at the fa c ts, whic h a re known to the

pa rtie s . The SSA a

pplie s a five -ste p a

na ly sis to de te rm ine whe the r an a pplic ant is disa ble d. 20 C .F.R
. § 404.1520(a). Ste ps one through thre e are not c onte ste d in this c a s e . B e fore m oving to ste p four, the ALJ m

ust de te rm ine the a

p plic ant’ s re sidua l func t iona l c a

pa c ity
. Id . at §404.1520(e ). Thorsne s c ha lle nge s the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation of his re sidua l func tiona l c a p a c ity ba se d on the m e dic a l e v ide nc e . The re c ord shows tha

t the ALJ c are fully

ana ly z e d a

nd we ighe d a ll of thee vide nc e , draw ing c onc lusions tha

t we re supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Molina v
. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110–11 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ Substa ntia l e vide nc e m e ans suc h
re le va nt e vide nc e a s a

re a sona ble m ind m ight a c c e pt a s a d e quate to support a
c onc lusion. . . . Eve

n whe n the e vide nc e is susc e ptibleto m ore tha n one rationa l
2inte rpre tation, we m ust uphold the

ALJ’ s findings if the

y are supporte d by infe re n c e s re a sona

bly drawn from

the re c ord.” (inte rna l c ita tions a nd quota tion
m arks om itte d)). Thorsne s a

rgue s tha t the ALJ ignore d the te stim ony of la y witne sse s re ga rding thee ffe c t of pa in on his re sidua l c a pa c i ty . Howe ve r, “ [a ] n ALJ ne e d only give ge rm ane re a sons for disc re diting the te stim ony

of la y witne sse s [a

nd] [i] nc onsiste nc y

with m e d ic a l e vide nc e is one suc h re a son.” Bay l iss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005) (c i ting Le w is v . Apfe l , 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th C ir. 2001)). TheALJ prope rly e xpla ine d tha t a fte r c onside ring the la

y e vide nc e , he gave it only

pa rtia l we ight in light of c ounte rva iling m e dic a l e vide nc e . The ALJ’ s de c ision to disre ga rd Thorsne s’ s sta

te m e nts a b out the e ffe c t of pa in on his re sidua l c a

p a c i ty w a s a l so supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . “ If the ALJ finds tha

t the c la im ant’ s te stim ony a s to the se ve rity

of [his] pa in a

nd im pa irm e nts is unre lia

b l e , the ALJ m

ust m ake a

c re dibility

de te rm ination with findings suffic ie ntly

spe c ific to pe rm it the c ourt to c onc lude tha t the ALJ did not
arbitra rily disc re dit c l a im ant’ s te stim ony . ” Thomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th C ir. 2002). He re , the ALJ note d Thorsne s’ s c ontra dic tory sta te m e nts
re ga rding his a c t ivity

le ve l an d pa in, a s we ll a s the m e d ic a l e vide nc e re ga rding his
c a pa c ity , c onc l uding tha

t Thorsne s wa s only pa

rtia lly c re dible on the issue of pa in
3le ve ls. This c onc l usion wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e id . at 959 (“ If the A LJ’ s c re dibility

finding is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord, we
m ay not e nga ge in se c ond-gue ssing.” ). Thorsne s a lso c onte sts theALJ’ s c onc lusion, under ste p five , tha t jobs
e xiste d in signific ant num be rs in the nationa l e c onom y tha t Thorsne s c ould ha

ve pe rform e d. The ALJ’ s hy pothe tic a l que stion to the voc at iona l e xpe rt (“ V E” ) wa s an a c c urate de sc ription of Thorsne s’ s re sidua l func tion, a nd the ALJ did not err in
re ly ing on theVE’ s te stim ony re ga rding a va i la ble jobs. Se e Bay l iss , 427 F.3d a t 1218 (“ An ALJ m ay

ta ke a dm inistra

tive notic e of a

ny re lia ble job inform ation, inc l uding inform ation provide d by a VE.” ). Nor did theALJ e rr in c onside ring the Stat e of W a shington a s the re le va nt re gion. Se e Gutie rre

z v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 740 F.3d 519, 527 (9th C ir. 2014) (ALJ did not e rr by c onside ring the e ntire State of C a lifornia

a s the re le va

nt re gion unde r ste p five ). AFFIRM E D.

4