NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMY FIEDEROWICZ ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI , Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 1 9

- 35 567
D.C. No. 3: 1 8

- cv - 01036

- MO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman , District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021 * * San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge; HAWKINS and McKEOWN , Circuit Judges. Amy Lorene Fiederowicz appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of h er application for disability

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Sec urity Act. We have jurisdiction

* 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

OCT 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 16254

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) . We review de novo, and t he Commissioner's decision must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence, and if the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Attmore v. Colvin , 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016)

. If the evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,” we are required to affirm. Id. (quoting Molina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded by regulation on other grounds )

.
W e affirm.

The ALJ erred in failing to discuss the April 2013 opinion of Fiederowicz’s treating physician Dr. Jacqueline Lustig, which addressed Fiederowicz’s condition shortly after brain surgery during which she suffered a stroke. See Marsh v.

Colvin , 792 F.3d 1170, 1172

– 73 (9th Cir. 2015) . Dr. Lustig’s opinion was
considered, however, in Fiederowicz’s prior unsuccessful claim for benefits , and her current claim alleged a failure to improve sufficiently in subsequent months.

In the context of th e current claim, the ALJ’s error is harmless because Dr. Lustig’s assessment of Fiederowicz’s post

- operative condition is “ inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination ” and this court can confidently

conclude that no reasonable ALJ could have reached a different disability

determination based on the neglected opinion. Id. at 1173 ( quoting Stout v.3 17

- 16254

Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin. , 454 F.3d 1050, 105 5

– 56 (9th Cir. 2006) ). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the opinion of

examin in g clinical neuropsychologist Dr. Julia Wong

- Ngan. T he ALJ was not required to include every facet of Dr. Wong

- Ngan’s opinion in the residual

function al capacity ( RFC ) because the ALJ is “responsible for translating and incorporating clinical findings into a succinct RFC.” See Rounds v. Comm'r, Soc.

Sec. Admin. , 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Stubbs

– Danielson v.

Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008))

. Moreover, the ALJ discounted parts of Dr. Wong

- Ngan’s opinion for valid reasons , and the RFC was properly based on
Dr. Wong

- Ngan’s clinical findings , as well as other opinions and evidence in the

record. Bayliss v. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216

- 17 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.