N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JASM INE M . M A TSUKADO,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, 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. 20-15727 D.C . No. 1:19-c v-00045-LEK-KJM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Le slie E . Koba

y a shi, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 17, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge , a

n d M O LLOY, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
NOV 22 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 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Dona ld W
. M olloy , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa t ion.Ja sm ine M a tsuka do 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 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 unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo a distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the de nia l of be ne fits a

nd will re v e rse only if the de c ision of thea dm inistra tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) c onta ins le ga l e rror or is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e . Ford v . Saul , 950 F.3d 1141, 1153-54 (9th C ir. 2020) (quoting Tommase tti v
. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2008)). Eve n whe n the ALJ e rrs, we m ay
a ffirm its de c ision whe n the e rror is ha rm l e ss. Id. at 1154. W e a ffirm
. I The ALJ did not c om

m it re ve rsible le ga l e rror by dism issing portions of M a t suka do’ s subje c tive sy m ptom s te stim ony

a s inc onsiste nt with e vide nc e in the
re c o rd. The ALJ fa ile d to ide ntify with suffic ie nt spe c ific ity “ w hic h pa

rt of [M atsuka do] ’ s te stim ony ” it wa s dism issing. Burre ll v . C olv in , 775 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th C ir. 2014). B ut be c a use the ALJ ga

v e littlewe ight to m e dic a l opinion
e vide nc e tha

t wa s substa

ntia lly sim ila

r to M atsuka do’ s te stim ony , we c an
re a s ona bly disc e rn whic h spe c i fic portions of he r te stim ony the ALJ found not
c re d ible
. Se e Tre i c hle r v . C omm’r of Soc

. Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th C ir. 2014). The re fore , this e rror wa s ha rm le ss. Se e id.
2Additiona lly , the ALJ provide d “ spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing” re a sons,

supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e , for disc re diting the se portions of M at suka do’ s te stim ony . Burre ll , 775 F.3d a t 1137-38. M atsuka do’ s a c tivitie s of da ily living from the tim e of he r a lle g e d disa bility onse t da te

— whic h ha ve inc lude d driving, shopping in store s, da ily

e xe rc ise , som e work a c t ivity , and going c am ping— and he r re c e nt m e dic a l history

— whic h indic ate s c onse rvat ive tre at m e nt a nd good progre ss a

t phy sic a l the ra

py
— a re inc onsiste n t with these ve re disa bling lim ita tions she a lle ge s. Se e Bray

v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th C ir. 2009) (holding ALJ m ay disc ount c la i m ant’ s subje c tive sym ptom te stim ony ba se d on inc o nsiste nc ie s with e vide nc e of da ily a c tivitie s like c le a

ning, driving,
and se e king e m

ploy m e nt post-onse t); Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th C ir. 2008) (a ffirm ing ALJ’ s re lia nc e on c l a im ant’ s favora

ble re s ponse to

“ c o nse rvative tre a tm e nt[,] inc luding phy sic a l the ra py ,” in disc re diting c la im of disa bling pa in). And e v e n if this e vide nc e is “ susc e ptible to m ore tha n one ra tiona l inte rpre tation, it is the

ALJ’ s c onc l usion” we m ust uphold. Burc h v . Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th C ir. 2005). II The ALJ did not err in a ssigning little we ight to the

m e dic a l opinion of M a t suka do’ s tre a ting phy sic ia n, Dr. Kipta . As the ALJ disc usse d, Dr. Kipta m e t
3with M atsuka do only twic e , a nd the se ve re lim i tations he a sse sse d c onflic te d with he r a fore m e ntione d a c tivitie s of da ily living. The se are “ spe c ific and le gitim ate
re a s ons tha

t a re supporte d by

substa n tia l e v ide nc e ” for disc re diting a tre ating phy sic ia n’ s opinion. Re v e ls v . Be rry hill , 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th C ir. 2017); se e also H olohan v . Massanari , 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 n.2 (9th C i r. 2001) (“ Unde r
c e rta in c irc um sta

nc e s, a tre a ting phy sic ia

n’ s opinion on som

e m atte r m ay

be
e ntitle d to little

if a ny we ight. This m

ight be the c a se , for insta

nc e , if the tre ating phy sic ia n ha s not se e n

the pat ie nt long e nough to ‘ have obta ine d a longitudina

l pic t ure ’ of the patie n t’ s im

pa irm e nts . . . .”(quoting 20 C .F.R
. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i) (c urre nt ve rsion a

t 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c )(2)(i))); Rollins v . Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th C ir. 2001) (a ffirm ing dismissa l of a tre ating phy sic ia

n’ s opinion whe re the purporte d “ re s tric tions a p pe ar to be inc onsiste nt with the le ve l of a c tivity that [the c la im ant] e nga ge d in” ). AFFIRM E D.

4