N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAVID H. KHAL,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-35751 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01361-AA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aike n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 27, 2017 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s . David H. Kha l a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of Kha l’ s a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion



# FIL ED APR 28 2017 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s de c ision denovo, Ghanim

v . C olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th C ir. 2014), a nd we a ffirm . Kha l c onte nds tha

t the a dm inistra

t ive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) im

prope rly re je c te d the o pinion of one

of Kha l ’ s tre ating phy sic ia ns, Pa ul Puz iss, M .D. W e disa gre e . Dr. Puz iss’ s opinion tha

t Kha l c ould not work wa s c ontra dic te d by the opinions of two re vie wing phy sic ia

ns, who c onc lude d tha

t Kha l c o u ld pe rform

work with c e rta in re stric tions. Se eDomingue z v . C olv i n , 808 F.3d 403, 406-07 (9th C ir. 2015), as ame nde d

(Fe b. 5, 2016) (“Unde r our pre c e de nt, if a tre ating doc tor’ s opinion is c ontra dic te d by othe r m e dic a l e vide n c e in the re c ord, the ALJ m ay re je c t this opinion only

by ‘ providing spe c ific an d le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .’ ” (quoting Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005)). The ALJ prope rly ide ntifie d two re a sons for giving little we ight to Dr. Puz iss’ s opinion: (1) the

im pa rtia l voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s opinion tha t Kha l ha d transfe rra ble skills from

his pa s t re le v an t work tha t re n de re d Kha l a

ble to pe rform the s e de nta

ry oc c upation of inform ation c le rk in a hospita l se tting wa s m o re pe rsua sive and, thus, e n t itle d to m ore we ight; a n d (2) Dr. Puz iss’ s opinion tha t Kha l wa s “ proba

bly inc a pa ble of a ny kind of work”wa s e quivoc a l, re n de ring Dr. Puz z is’ s opinion le ss c om pe lling. Se e Mc

Le od v . Astrue , 640 F.3d 881, 884 (9th C ir. 2011) (a ffirm ing the ALJ’ s re je c tion of m e dic a l opinion tha t c l a im ant “ c ould 2not work a

t a l l ” be c a use “ t his de te rm inat ion is for theSoc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion to m ake , not a

phy sic ia n” ); Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008) (de fe rring to theALJ we i ghing of two me dic a l opinions, one of whic h wa s e quivoc a l, a nd e xpla ining tha

t “ the ALJ is thefina l a

rbite r with re spe c t to re s olving a

m biguitie s in the m e dic a l e vide nc e ” ). Additionally , the ALJ ide ntifie d thre e c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for giving le ss we ight to Dr. Puz iss’ s 2010 a s se ssm e nt of Kha l’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity : (1) it wa s offe re d two y e ars a fte r Kha l’ s da te la st insure d a

nd wa s not spe c ific a lly

lim ite d to the re le va

nt tim e pe riod; (2) it wa s inc onsiste nt with other inform at ion in there c ord; a nd (3) it wa s not supporte d by Dr. Puz iss’ s e xam ination findings from

De c e m be r 2004 a

nd M arc h 2005. Se e Rollins v . Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th C ir. 2001) (a ffirm ing a n ALJ’ s re je c tion of a

tre ating phy sic ia n’ s opinion tha

t im pose d re stric tions tha

t a p pe are d inc onsiste nt with the c la im ant’ s da ily

a c tivitie s); M

organ v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 169 F.3d 595, 601 (9th C i r. 1999) (finding tha t substa ntia l e vide n c e supporte d a n ALJ’ s disc ounting of a phy sic ia n’ s re ports tha

t did not show how the

c la im a nt’ s

“ sym ptom s tra nsla te into spe c ific func tiona l de fic its whic h pre c lude work a c tivity ” ).

3Kha l c onte nds tha t the ALJ im

prope rly re je c te d both his sy

m ptom te stim ony and the la y witne ss te stim ony of his wife . W e disa gre e . The ALJ provide d thre e spe c ific , c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for finding Kha l’ s sy m p tom s te stim ony

le ss tha n fully c re dible : (1) inc onsiste nt phy sic a l a c tivitie s ; (2) inc o nsiste nt re porting of lim ita tions; a nd (3) fa ilure c om

ply with pre s c ribe d m e dic a l tre atm e n t s. S e e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th C ir. 2012) (listing fac tors a n ALJ m ay c onside r in we ighing a c la im ant’ s c re dibility , inc luding inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n te stim ony and c onduc t, da ily

a c tivitie s, a

nd a n ina de quate ly

e xpla ine d

fa ilure to follow a pre sc ribe d c ourse of tre atm e nt); Tommase tti , 533 F.3d a t 1040 (a ffirm ing an ALJ’ s infe re nc e tha

t a c la im ant wa s not a s phy sic a lly lim ite d a s he purporte d to be from his a bility to tra ve l to Ve ne z ue la

for an e x te nde d tim e ). It wa s c le arly e rrone ous for the ALJ to ha v e re lie d on how Kha l la

wfully struc ture d his busine ss to re duc e his ta

x lia bility , in the a

bse nc e of a

ny showing tha

t he did a nything ille g a l or im

prope r. Howe ve r, this e rror wa s ha rm le ss be c a

use the re m a i ning re a s ons the ALJ provide d for finding Khal le ss tha n fully c re dible are spe c i fic , c le ar an d c onvinc ing a

nd a re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e C

armic k lev . C omm’r Soc . Se c . , 533 F.3d 1155, 1162–63 (9th C ir. 2008). M ore ove r, be c a use the l ay te stim ony

of Kha l’ s wife re ga

rding he r husba

nd’ s func tiona l lim ita

tions wa s ve ry sim ila

r to Kha l’ s own sy

m ptom te s tim ony , the spe c ific , c le ar and 4c onvinc i ng re a sons theALJ provide d to find Khal le ss tha n fully c re d ible a lso c onstitute ge rm a ne re a sons to find M

rs. Kha l’ s la

y te stim ony

le ss tha n fully c re d ible . Molina , 674 F.3d a t 1114; Vale ntine

v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th C ir. 2009). B e c a use the ALJ did not err in giving little we i ght to Dr. Puz iss’ s opinions or to the te stim ony

of Kha l a nd his wife , the ALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity a sse ssm e nt prope rly

re lie s on a

n a sse ssm e nt of a l l the c re dible , re le va n t e vide nc e , se e 2 0 C .F.R . §§ 404.1545(a ), 416.945(a), and the hy

pothe tic a l pose d to the voc ationa l e xpe rt inc l ude d a ll re le va n t lim ita t ions. Se e Ose nbroc k

v . Apfe l , 240 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th C ir 2001). Fina lly , Kha l c o nte n ds tha t the ALJ’ s Ste p 5 de te rm i nation is fla we d be c a use the ALJ im

prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t Kha l ha s tra

nsfe ra b le skills re late d to the p e rform anc e of a

single oc c upation. W e disa gre e . The ALJ did not err in re ly ing on thee xiste n c e of a single se de nta

ry oc c upation to find Kha

l not disa ble d at ste p five of the se que ntia l e va luation proc e ss. In Tommase tti, we de c line d “ to e xte nd Lounsburry ’ s de finition of ‘ signific a n t ra nge ,’ whic h pe rta ins to a light work a na ly sis” to a c a se tha

t, like Kha l’ s, involve d a se de nta ry work a na ly sis. Tommase tti , 533 F.3d a

t 1044 (e xpla ining tha

t Lounsburry

v . Barnhart , 468 F.3d 1111 (9th C ir. 2006), “ is distinguisha ble be c a use it involve d a

diffe re nt grid rule
5that

wa s ba se d on light e x e rtion (R ule 202.07), whe re a s this c a se involve s a grid rule ba se d

on se de nta

ry e xe rtion (R

ule 201.07)” ). The ALJ pe rm issibly re lie d on the v oc ationa l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony to c onc lude tha

t Kha l’ s highly

skille d pa s t re le va nt work a s a

c hiropra c tor c ould be e xpe c te d to e quip him with skills transfe ra ble to pe rform anc e of the job of inform ation c le rk at a high de gre e of profic ie nc y

with a m i nim a l a

m ount of job orientation. Se e id. at 1042-43; se e also J ohnson v . Shalala , 60 F.3d 1428, 1435 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ The Se c re ta ry m ay ta ke a dm inistra

tive notic e of any

re lia ble job inform ation, inc luding . . . the se rvic e s of a voc ationa l e xpe rt.” (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tions omitte d )). AFFIRM E D.

6