N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT TAM M Y R . JOR GENSEN,

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 n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-35635 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-05199-R B L 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 R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R , IKUTA, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. C la im ant Ta

m m y R . Jorge nse n a

ppe a ls a distric t c ourt judgm e nt a ffirm ing the d e nia l of he r a

pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e and Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc o m e unde r the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. R e v ie wing the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision de



# FIL ED MAR 13 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

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

nd the a d m inistra t ive la w judge ’ s (" ALJ" ) de c ision for substa ntia l e vide nc e , R ounds v. C om

m ’ r Soc . Se c . Adm i n., 807 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th C ir. 2015), we a ffirm
. 1. The ALJ did not err in a na ly z ing the m e dic a l e vide n c e . In pa rtic ula r, the ALJ did not err in a sse ssing Dr. La ura Ke e te r’ s re port be c a

use the re s idua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity (" RFC " ) a sse ssm e nt a c c ounte d for C la im a nt’ s re spira

tory sym ptom s doc um e nte d in tha

t re port, but the

re port’ s othe r c o nc lusions la c ke d a de quate support in the

re c ord. The ALJ a lso did not im prope rly re je c t Nurse De sire e White ’ s re port. The ALJ ha d no duty to supple m e nt the re c ord be c a use the White re p ort wa s a d e quate " to a llow for prope r e va luation of thee vide nc e ." M ay e s v. M a ssa

na ri, 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th C ir. 2001). TheALJ c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Nurse Wh ite wa s not a

n " a c c e pta

ble m e dic a l sourc e , " se e 20 C .F.R . § 404.1513(a) (listing a c c e pta ble sourc e s), a

nd provide d " ge rm a

n e re a sons" for disc ounting he r opinion, se e M olina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th C i r. 2012). The ALJ a lso c orre c tly a sse sse d the re m a ining m e dic a l sourc e s. Fina lly , the A LJ did not err in c onc luding tha t C la im ant’ s a sthm a

wa s not a se ve re im pa irm e nt, be c a

use she ide ntifie d a de quate re c o rd support for he r c onc l usion tha t C la im an t’ s a sthm a

is we ll c ontrolle d with prope r m e dic ation.

22. The ALJ did not err in a sse ssing C la im ant’ s c re dibility . The ALJ

" provide [d] c le ar and c o nvinc ing re a sons, supporte d by e vide n c e in the re c ord," for c onc luding tha

t C la im ant’ s a sthm a

and diz z ine s s sy

m ptom s we re not a s se ve re a s a lle ge d. B rown-Hunte r v. C olvin, 806 F.3d 487, 489 (9th C ir. 2015). The ALJ re a s ona bly found tha

t C la im ant’ s a c t ivitie s of da ily living underm ine d som e of he r a sse rtions a

nd form ulate d a n R FC c onsiste nt with those

a c tivitie s. Se e M o lina , 674 F.3d at 1113 (e xpla i ning tha t a c tivitie s of da ily

living " m ay be grounds for disc re diting the

c la im an t ’ s te stim ony

to the e xte nt tha

t the y c ontra dic t c la im s of a tota lly de bilita t ing im pa irm e nt" ). The ALJ did not err in c o nside ring, without tre ating a s dispositive , C la im ant’ s a pplic ation for une m

ploy m e nt be ne fits during the a lle ge d disa

bility pe riod, in whic h she c e rtifie d a n ongoing se arc h

for full-tim e e m ploy m e nt. Se e C arm i c kle v. C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . Adm in., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161–62 (9th C ir. 2008) (holding tha t " re c e ipt of une m

ploy m e nt be ne fits c an unde rm ine a

c la im ant’ s a lle ge d ina

bility to work full[-] tim e " ); C o pe la nd v. B owe n, 861 F.2d 536, 542 (9th C ir. 1988) (sa m e ). 3. The ALJ did not err in form ulat ing the R

FC . Eve n a ssum ing, without de c iding, tha

t the ALJ did not ade quate ly e xpla in he r c onc lusion a

t Ste p Four of the s e que ntia l e va luation proc e ss tha t C la im ant c ould pe rform pa st re le va

n t work, the A LJ did not err in he r c onc lusion a t Ste p Five tha

t C la im ant c ould pe rform 3othe r work. Se e M olina , 674 F.3d a t 1115 (e xpla ining tha

t a n e rror wa s

" inc o nse que ntia l whe re the re c ord supporte d the ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha t the c la im ant wa s a

ble to pe rform

othe r light work a

nd the re fore wa s not disa

b le d" ). 4. W e de c line C la im ant’ s re que st to c re d it he r te stim ony a s true and to re m and for the c a lc ulation of be ne fits. The ALJ ga ve pe rm issiblere a sons for not c re d iting a spe c ts of C la im ant’ s te stim ony tha t c onflic te d with theR

FC . AFFIRM E D.

4