N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LYLE W ESLEY HAYES,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 16-35011 D.C . No. C V-15-008-M -JC L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Je re m ia h C Ly nc h, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 5, 2018 **
B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f C irc uit Judge , TR OTT a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s . Ly le W e sle y

Ha y e s a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the de c ision of theC om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity de ny ing his a

pplic ation for 

# F IL ED
JAN 9 2018 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).supple m e nta l se c urity inc om e unde r Title 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 the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo, Garrison v . C

olv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th C ir. 2014), a nd we a ffirm
. B e c a use tre atm e nt note s a

nd Ha y e s’ s he aring te s tim ony

indic ate tha

t the
m e dic at ion he ta

ke s for c onge stive he a

rt fa ilure (“ C HF” ) doe s not c a use any side
e ffe c ts, the ALJ did not err a t ste p two in finding tha t C HF wa s non-se ve re without
c onside ring the side e ffe c ts Ha y e s now a lle g e s or de ve loping there c o rd a s to this issue . Ha y e s’ s a dditional a

rgum e nt tha

t the ALJ e rre d in finding tha t C HF wa s
non-se ve re by re ly ing in pa rt on the opinion of e xam ining phy sic i an Dr. W a lte r is ina p posite be c a

u se the ALJ did not re ly on Dr. W a lte r’ s opinion but re fe rre d only to Dr. W a lte r’ s obse rvation tha t Ha y e s did not e xhibit a

ny signs or sy

m ptom s of C HF upon e xam i nation. The ALJ did not err a t ste p two in finding tha t Ha y e s’ s sle e p a

pne a wa s
non-se ve re without e v a luating this im pa irm e nt a s spe c ifie d unde r se c tion 3.10 of the L isting of Im

pa irm e nts be c a

use se c t ion 3.10 pe rta ins to thee va l uation of disa bility at ste p thre e , 20 C .F.R . § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), a n d wa s the re fore ina p plic a ble to the ALJ’ s finding a t ste p two. If Ha

y e s m e ans to a

rgue tha t the ALJ e rre d at ste p thre e by not c onside ring whe the r his sle e p a p ne a m e t or e qua le d the c rite ria

of se c tion 3.10, his a

rgum e nt is m e ritle s s be c a use he fa ils to e xpla in
2how his im

pa irm e nt m e e ts or e qua ls the c rite ria of se c tion 3.10. Burc h v

. Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9th C ir. 2005). The ALJ wa s not re quire d to c om ple te a psy c hiatric re v ie w te c hnique form to de te rm ine the se ve rity

of a ny m e nta l im

pa irm e nt be c a

use Ha y e s did not pre se nt
a “ c olora ble c l a im of m e nta l im

pa irm e nt.” K

e y se r v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 648 F.3d 721, 725-727 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita t ion om itte d). The ALJ prope rly

disc ounte d tre ating phy sic ia n Dr. Pa ddoc k’ s c ontrove rte d opinion by

providing a

t l e a st two re a sons tha

t a re spe c ific , le gitim at e , a

nd supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Ry an v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th C ir. 2008). Spe c ific a lly , Dr. Pa ddoc k’ s opinion lac ks support from a
c onte m p orane ous e xam ination a

nd is inc onsiste nt with both Dr. Wa lte r’ s opinion
and findings upon exam ination. Se e Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th C ir. 2005) (ALJ pe rm issibly re je c te d opinion for re a sons inc luding la c k of support from m e dic a l a

nd othe r e vide nc e ). Although Ha y e s a rgue s on a

re late d note tha

t the A LJ viola

te d 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(e )(1)(i) (e ffe c tive Aug. 24, 2012 to M ar. 26, 2017) be c a

use Dr. W a lte r wa s “ de prive d of pe rtine nt m e d ic a l re c ords,” his
argum e nt is m e ritle ss. The c i te d re gula tion de s c ribe s wha

t the State a ge nc y ’ s none xam ining m e dic a l c onsulta nts will do whe

n re vie wing there c ord, but doe s not

3im

pose any obliga tion on the

ALJ or re late to the work of a c onsulta tive e xam ine r like Dr. W a lte r. Although the ALJ e rre d

by disc ounting voc at iona l c ounse lor M r. Fowle r’ s la y opinion be c a

use he is not a

n “ a c c e pta

ble m e dic a l sourc e ,” se e 20 C .F.R . § 416.927(f) (opinions of m e dic a l a nd non-m e dic a l sourc e s will be e va luate d
a c c ording to the

sa m e fa c tors), the e rror wa s ha rm le s s. The ALJ prope rly disc ounte d M r. Fowle r’ s opinion for two othe r ge rm an e re a sons, na

m e ly the fa c t that M r. Fowle r’ s opinion is inc onsiste nt with both Dr. Wa lte r’ s opinion a nd Hay e s’ s la c k of m e dic a l tre atm e nt. Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th C ir. 2012). Hay e s c onte nds tha

t the ALJ e rre d by

fa iling to disc

u s s tre atm e nt note s from Dr. Forne y -Gorm an c onta ining diagnose s of he a da c he s a nd de pre ssion, but he

doe s not disc uss a

ny suc h e v ide nc e in his brie fing. M o re ove r, a re vie wof Dr. Forne y -Gorm an’ s tre atm e nt note s re ve a ls no m e ntion of he a da c he s a nd only one
a sse ssm e nt of “ m ild depre ssion” m ore tha n one y e a r be fore the a

pplic ation da

te . B e c a use Ha y e s fa ils to e xpla i n how this e vide nc e is signific a nt or proba

tive , he fa ils to show tha

t the ALJ e rre d

by not disc ussing it. Se e How a rd e x re l. W olff v

. Barnhart , 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th C ir. 2003).

4B e c a

use Ha y e s did not alle ge disa

bility on the ba sis of a

ny m e nta l im pa irm e nt a

nd doe s not point to a

ny tre at m e nt of m e nta l im

pa i rm e nt during the
a djudic atory pe riod or m e dic a l opinions indic ating tha t he e ndure s func tiona l lim ita tions a s a re sult of m e nta l im

pa irm e nt, a

m e nta l c onsulta

tion wa s not re quire d to prope rly

re solve his c la i m . 20 C .F.R . § 416.919f. The ALJ prope rly

disc re dite d Ha

y e s ’ s te stim ony

on the se ve rity

of his sym ptom s by providing a

t le a st two spe c ific , c le ar, and c o nvinc ing re a sons. Vasque z v . Astrue , 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th C i r. 2009). Ha y e s’ s a l le gation of disa bling im pa i rm e nt is inc onsiste nt with his adm itte d a bilitie s to c are for him se lf without a ny trouble , pre pa

re m e a ls for him se lf, do la undry , a nd drive
. Se e Garrison , 759 F.3d a

t 1015 (ALJ m a

y disc re d it c la im ant’ s te stim ony if inc onsiste nt with re porte d a c tivitie s). His c o m p la int of fa

t igue is a l so inc onsiste nt with obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e and Ha y e s’ s la c k of m e dic a l tre atm e nt. S e e Burc h , 400 F.3d at 681 (ALJ m ay

disc ount c re dibility

of c la im ant’ s c om

p la int if unsupporte d by obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e ). In the e nd, the ALJ prope rly inc lude d in there sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity
a sse ssm e nt a

nd hy pothe t ic a l que stion to the voc ationa l e xpe rt only those lim ita tions hefound c re dible and supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Bay liss , 427 F.3d a

t 1217.
5AFFIRM E D.

6