N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ATHERINE W . OR C UTT,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-16078 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-02474-JC M -PAL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C HR ISTEN an d B ADE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FEINER

M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff C a the rine Orc utt a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for Soc i a l Se c urity



# FIL ED MAR 10 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Honora

ble Ga ry Fe ine rm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.disa

bility be ne fits. W e re vie w de novo a nd m ay se t a side a de nia l of be ne fits only if it is unsupporte d

by substa n tia l e vide nc e or the a d

m inistra tive la w judge (ALJ)
c om m itte d le ga l e rror. Ford v . Saul , 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th C ir. 2020). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with the fa c ts, we re c ite only those ne c e ssa

ry to re solve the argum e nts
on a ppe a l
. 1. Orc utt a

rgue s the ALJ e rre d by

disc o unting theopinion of her tre ating phy sic ia n, Dr. R o binson. “Although a tre ating phy s ic ia

n’ s opinion is ge

n e ra lly
a fforde d the gre a te st we ight in disa bility c a s e s, it is not binding on a n ALJ with
re spe c t to thee xiste nc e of a n im pa irm e nt or the ultim ate de te rm ination of disa bility .” Batson v
. C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting Tonape ty an v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th C i r. 2001)). “ The ALJ m ay disre ga rd the tre a ting phy sic i an’ s opinion whe the r or not tha t opinion is
c ontra dic te d,” Magallane s v . Bow e n , 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th C ir. 1989), but “ m ust provide ‘ spe c ific and le gitim a te ’ re a sons for re j e c ting theopinion of a

tre at ing phy sic ia n,” Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Leste r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th C i r. 1995)). The ALJ found tha

t Dr. R obinson’ s opinion wa s not supporte d by his own obje c tive findings, vague , a nd inc onsiste nt with Orc utt’ s da i ly a c t ivitie s. Dr.
2R obinson’ s e xam ination note s from 2007 through 2012 re

pe ate d ly re fle c te d tha

t Orc utt wa lke d we ll with a norm a l ga it a

nd pre se nte d norm a l sta

t ion, re fle x , m otor,
and se n sory

re sponse s . Although Dr. R obinson c onsiste ntly

note d tha t Orc utt
e xpe rie nc e d pa in a

nd te nde rne s s a

round the T7 ve rte bra , his e xam ination findings
are n ot c onsiste nt with the de gre e of disa

bility Orc utt c la im s. Se e id. M ore ove r, the o bje c t ive m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord shows tha t Orc utt re c e ive d signific ant
re lie f from

he r sym ptom s with interlam ina

r ne rve bloc k inje c tions a nd the re lie f la ste d for pe riods of up to twe l ve we e ks. W e c onc lude the ALJ ga ve spe c ific and le gitim ate re a sons for disc ounting Dr. R obinson’ s opinion. 2. In the distric t c ourt, Orc utt did not cha lle nge the we ight give n to the opinions of Dr. Krutulis or Nurse Pra c titione r Landc a stle . Assum i ng the se argum e nts a

re not wa ive d , we c onc lude the ALJ did not errone ously we igh the se two opinions. As with Dr. R obinson’ s opinion, the

ALJ pe rm issibly

disc ounte d the opinions be c a

use the y we re inc onsiste nt with other e vide nc e in the re c o rd. 3. Orc utt a l so a

rgue s the ALJ e rre d by disc o unting he r subje c tive sym ptom te stim ony . An ALJ m

ust c om ple te a two-ste p a

na ly sis to de te rm ine whe the r a c la im ant’ s sy

m ptom te stim ony

is c re d ible
. Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th C ir. 2012). First, the ALJ de te rm ine s whe t

he r the c la im a

n t pre s e nte d “ obje c tive m e d ic a l e vide nc e of a n unde rly ing im

pa irm e nt [tha

t] c ould
3re a s ona

bly be e xpe c te d to produc e the [c la im ant’ s] pa i n or othe r sym ptom s a lle ge d.” Id. (inte rna l c ita tion omitte d). Se c ond, if theALJ finds no e v ide nc e of
m a linge ring, the ALJ m ay re je c t the c la i m ant’ s sy

m ptom te stim ony

by providing

“ spe c ific , c le a

r a nd c onvinc ing re a sons” for doing so. Id. (inte rna l c ita tion a nd quota t ion m arks om itte d). At ste p two, theALJ de te rm ine d Orc utt’ s te s tim o ny tha t he r lim ita

t ions would pre c lude he r from

working wa s inc onsiste nt with obje c tive c linic a l findings, inte rna lly inc onsiste nt, a

nd e xa gge rate d. As disc u sse d, the obje c tive m e d ic a l
e vide nc e showe d norm a l m otor a nd se nsory

func tions de s pite Orc utt’ s re ports of pa in a nd te nde rne ss a

round T7. The e v ide nc e a lso showe d tha t the inje c tions she
re c e ive d provide d signific a n t re duc tion in pain for up to twe lve we e ks a t a tim e . Though shete stifie d he r pa in pre c lude d he r from working, Orc utt te stifie d tha t she ha d looke d for othe r a c c ounting jobs, a nd wa s working on a

pa rt-tim e ba sis a

t the tim e of he r 2013 he aring. W e c onc lude the ALJ provide d suffic ie n tly spe c i fic , c le ar an d c onvinc ing re a s ons for disc ounting Orc utt’ s te s tim o ny . Se e Thomas v
. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ If the ALJ’ 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 ondgue ssing.” ).

44. Orc utt’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the ALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a p a c ity de te rm i nation wa s unsupporte d by substa n tia l e vide nc e de pe n ds on he r argum e nts that the ALJ e rre d by disc ounting the opinions of Dr. R

obinson, Dr. Krutulis, a

nd Nurse Pra c titione r La

ndc a s tle . B e c a

use we c onc lude the ALJ did not errone ously
we igh thosem e dic a l opinions, we c onc lude the ALJ’ s re s idua l func t iona l c a pa c ity de te rm i nation wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . AFFIRM E D.

5