N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LUC Y A. STEPHENS,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-15253 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00096-JAD-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 Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 13, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, GOULD, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Luc y Ste phe ns 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 he r a pplic ations for soc ia l se c urity disa bility insura nc e be n e fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e . Ste phe ns a

rgue s 

# FIL ED D EC 16 2016 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).that : (1) the a dm inistra tive la w judge (ALJ) e rre d by not e va luating a ll of he r se ve re im pa irm e n ts a

t ste p two a

nd not inc orporating none xe rtiona l lim ita t ions in he r re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c i ty (RFC ) at ste p four; (2) the ALJ im prope rly
e va luate d m e dic a l opinion evide nc e ; (3) the ALJ im prope rly disc ounte d the
c re d ibility

of he r te s tim ony ; (4) the m a gistra te judge and the C om

m issione r im pe rm issibly e n ga ge d

in post hoc

rationa liz ation; a

nd (5) we should re m and for pa ym e nt of be ne fits. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Re vie wing thedistric t
c ourt’ s de c ision denovo a nd the de te rm ination of theALJ for substa ntia l e vide nc e , Garrison v . C

o lv in , 759 F.3d 995, 1009–10 (9th C i r. 2014), we a ffirm
. 1. Assum ing the ALJ e rre d at ste p two by not a ddre ssing whe the r Ste p he ns’ s c hronic pa i n sy ndrom e wa s a

se v e re im

pa irm e nt, the e rror wa s ha rm le s s. The ALJ c onside re d the a ssoc iate d lim ita t ions in the

R FC a sse ssm e nt a

t ste p four. S

e e Le w is v . Astrue , 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th C ir. 2007). TheALJ’ s R FC
a sse ssm e nt re fle c ts tha

t he c onside re d

any lim ita tions pose d by

c hronic pa in sy ndrom e , a nd the re c ord doe s not show e vide nc e of func tiona l lim ita t ions tha t the ALJ did not c onside r. The ALJ did not err in fa iling to inc lude Ste phe ns’ s fatigue
a s a se ve re im

pa irm e nt be c a

use it wa s not supporte d by the m e dic a l re c ord. Se e 20 C .F.R . § 416.908; Uk

olov v . Barnhart , 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th C ir. 2005).

22. The ALJ ga ve spe c ific and le g itim ate re a sons tha t a re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e for the we ight he a c c orde d to m e dic a l opinions from Ste p he ns’ s tre ating, e xam ining, a nd non-e xam ining phy sic ia ns. Se e Van N

guy e n v . C hate r , 100 F.3d 1462, 1466 (9th C ir. 1996). TheALJ suffic ie ntly e xpla ine d why he gave substa

ntia l we ight to Dr. Dhaliwa l’ s a s se s sm e nt, whic h wa s ba s e d on Dr. She rm an’ s e xam ination a nd Ste phe ns’ s c um

ulative m e dic a l re c ords, but disc ounte d Dr. Elka nic h’ s opinion re g arding Ste phe ns’ s pre -surge ry lim ita tions a nd Dr. W itt’ s opinion tha

t did not se t forth spe c ific work-re late d func t iona l lim ita tions. None

of Ste p he ns’ s tre ating phy sic ia ns ga ve an opinion on the

ultim at e issue of disa

b ility , and no phy sic ia

n opine d tha

t she wa s wholly

pre c lude d from

working. 3. The ALJ did not err in finding Ste p he ns le ss tha

n c re dible a s to the inte nsity , pe rsiste nc e , a

nd lim iting e ffe c ts of he r sym ptom s to thee xte nt tha

t he r te stim ony wa s inc o nsiste nt with the ALJ’ s R FC a s se s sm e nt. The ALJ provide d

“ spe c ific , c le a

r, a nd c onvinc ing re a sons” in finding Ste phe ns’ s te stim ony

not fully
c re d ible
. Burre ll v . C

olv in , 775 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th C ir. 2014). TheALJ found Ste p he ns’ s sy

m ptom te stim ony

inc onsiste nt with m e dic a l re c ords showing m ild findings, he r re porte d im

prove m e nt a fte r a c e rvic a l spine surge ry , the opinion tha t Ste p he ns’ s pa in wa s we l l c ontrolle d by m e dic ation, a

nd the opinion of a

m e dic a l
e xam ine r. Se e Parra v . Astrue , 481 F.3d 742, 750–51 (9th C ir. 2007).
34. Ste phe n s’ s othe r argum e nts, tha t the m a gistra

t e judge and the C om m issione r e n ga ge d in post hoc rationa liz ation a

nd tha t she is e ntitle d to
re m and for pa

ym e nt of be ne fits, a

re without m e rit. W e c onc lude tha

t the ALJ’ s findings a

re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord, a

nd a ny e rrors are ha

rm le ss. AFFIRM E D.

4