NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN J. STAINBROOK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-36025 

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-06185-MLP 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2021**

Seattle, Washington

Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

This appeal arises from the denial of Appellant Kevin Stainbrook’s 

Application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI Application”). The 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) affirmed 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 7 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

the denial of Appellant’s SSI Application after the Administrative Law Judge 

(“ALJ”) found that Appellant was not disabled. Specifically, the ALJ found that 

Appellant was not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act 

because, even considering Appellant’s impairments, Appellant was capable of 

making a successful adjustment to other work that existed in the national economy 

in significant numbers. Appellant requested reconsideration which was also 

denied. Thereafter, Appellant filed a civil suit in the District Court for the Western 

District of Washington, seeking judicial review of the ALJ’s decision. The district 

court entered an Order affirming the ALJ’s decision, denying SSI benefits. Now, 

Appellant challenges the district court’s decision alleging error. 

We review the district court’s judgment affirming the ALJ’s denial of SSI 

benefits de novo, Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008), “and 

reverse only if the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the 

record as a whole or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard.” Molina v. 

Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2012). 

First, Appellant argues that the ALJ erred by failing to properly evaluate the 

medical evidence and medical opinions in the record. The record does not support 

this conclusion. The ALJ properly analyzed the medical opinions in the record, 

weighed them, and properly disregarded only any medical opinion that was not 

supported by the objective medical evidence. The ALJ “may disregard a medical 
3 

opinion . . . inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Britton v. Colvin, 787 F.3d 

1011, 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). 

Next, Appellant argues that the ALJ erred by discounting Appellant’s 

subjective pain testimony. The ALJ discounted Appellant’s testimony because it 

was not consistent with Appellant’s activities of daily living, and the objective 

medical evidence in the record. Appellant’s testimony is contradicted by numerous 

x-rays and medical opinions indicating that Appellant’s symptoms have stabilized. 

“Contradiction with the medical record is a sufficient basis for rejecting the 

claimant’s subjective testimony.” Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 

F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008).

Lastly, Appellant argues that his residual functioning capacity (“RFC”) 

assessment was determined incorrectly because it did not account for the opinions 

of two individuals, Dr. Donlon and Ms. Williams. Appellant’s RFC assessment 

argument is premised on the asserted impropriety of the ALJ’s decision to discount 

the opinions of Dr. Donlon and Ms. Williams. This argument is not persuasive 

because we hold that the ALJ’s decision to discount the opinions of Dr. Donlon and 

Ms. Williams was proper and supported by the objective medical record. 

AFFIRMED.