N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GAR Y D. UNDER

HILL, 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 nt-Appe l le e . No. 22-36033 D.C . No. 3:22-c v-05192-B AT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B rian Tsuc h ida , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 5, 2023 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : N.R . SM ITH, SANC HEZ, a n d M ENDOZA, C i rc uit Judge s. Gary Unde rhill a

ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ 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 Unde rhill’ s a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t (SSA). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r



# FIL ED
DEC 7 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).28 U.S.C . § 1291. “ W e re vie wa distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt de novo a n d se t a side a de nia l of be ne fits only

if it is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e or is ba se d on le ga l e rror.” Smartt v . K

ijak azi , 53 F.4th 489, 494 (9th C ir. 2022) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). W e a ffirm
. 1. B a se d on this c ourt’ s de c ision in a prior a ppe a l , Unde r

hill v . Be rry hill , 685 F. App’ x 522 (9th C ir. 2017), thela w of the c a se doc trine a

pplie s, se e Stac

y v . C olv in , 825 F.3d 563, 567 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ T he la w of the c a se doc trine ge ne ra lly prohibits a

c ourt from

c onside ring a

n issue that ha s a lre a dy

be e n de c ide d by

tha t
sam e c ourt or a

highe r c o urt in thesa

m e c a se .” ). In the prior a

ppe a l, we re ve rse d the A dm i nistra

t ive La w Judge ’ s (ALJ) de nia l of be ne fits, be c a use the ALJ fa ile d to

“ give pe rsua sive , spe c ific , a nd va lid re a sons” for disc ounting the De pa rtm e nt of Ve te rans Affa irs (VA) disa b ility rating a n d the ALJ “ fa il[e d] to c onside r the
m e dic a l opinion of Dr. R

e z va ni.” Unde rhill , 685 F. App’ x at 522–23 (c le a

n e d up). Unde rhill ra ise d se ve ra l a rgum e nts in his prior a

ppe a l re lating to the

ALJ’ s findings a t ste p two, the ALJ’ s a sse ssm e nt of Pla intiff’ s te s tim ony , and the ALJ’ s disc ounting of c e rta in m e dic a l opinions writte n by Dr. Suffis; Ez at ola

h R e z va ni, M .D.; Da na Te ll, AR NP; a nd B e tty B e nne tt, AR

NP. Howe v e r, we re

je c te d Unde rhill’ s the se argum e nts a s “ unpe rsua sive .” Id. at 523.

2Thus, a bse nt a showing tha

t the doc t rine should not be

a pplie d, we will not
re visit those

argum e nts. Se e Stac

y , 825 F.3d a

t 567 (outlining tha

t the e xc e ptions to the l aw of the c a se doc trine are “ whe n the e vide nc e on re m a n d is substa

ntia lly diffe re nt, whe n the c ontrolling la w ha s c ha nge d, or whe n a

pply ing the doc t

rine would be unjust” ). Unde rhill doe s not a rgue tha t a ny of the s e e xc e ptions a

p ply but inste a d a s se rts tha

t the doc trine is ina

pplic a ble , be c a use our prior de c ision wa s dic t a . W e disa g re e . W e e xplic itly re je c te d Unde rhill’ s othe r c ha lle nge s to the ALJ’ s de c ision. Se e Unite d State s v . Lummi N

ation , 763 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ The la

w of the c a se doc trine a

pplie s only

whe n the issue wa s de c ide d
e xplic itly or by ne c e ssa ry im p l ic ation in the

pre vious disposition.”

(inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). Eve n though the re s olution of the

issue s wa s not dispositive , our re

j e c tion of Unde rhill’ s c ha lle nge s wa s not dic ta . Se e Unite d State s
v . J ohnson , 256 F.3d 895, 914 (9th C ir. 2001) (pe r c uriam ) (e n ba nc ) (e xpla ining that whe n c ourts “ c onfront c a se s ra ising m ultiple issue s tha

t c ould be dispositive ,”
and the y e le c t t o re solve those issue s “ in orde r to a void re pe tition of e rrors on
re m and or provideguida

nc e for future c a se s,” those re solutions a re not dic ta ). Nota bly , we spe c ific a lly

e le c t e d to limit the issue s tha t the ALJ ha d to re c onside r following re m a

nd. S e e id. Although were m a

nde d the c a se on a

n ope n re c ord, tha

t
a llowa nc e did not re ope n the e ntire ty of the c a se but a llowe d Unde rhill to pre se nt
3a dditional e vide nc e in support of his c la im e d disa bilitie s. Ac c ordingly , be c a use Unde rhill ha s not pre se nte d a ny othe r e xc e ptions to a

pply ing the la

w of c a se doc trine , we will not re visit Underhill’ s a rgum e nts re late d

to the ALJ’ s ste p two
ana ly sis; theALJ’ s a sse ssm e nt of the m e d ic a l opinions of Dr. Suffis, a nd nurse pra c titione rs Te ll a

nd B e nne tt; a

nd Unde rhill’ s sy

m ptom te s tim ony . 2. The ALJ provide d “pe rsua sive , spe c i fic , va lid re a s ons” for disc ounting the

VA disa bility rating. Se e Mc C

arte y v . Massanari , 298 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th C ir. 2002). TheALJ re a sona bly gav e littlewe ight to the

VA’ s 100% disa bility rating, 1 be c a

u s e it wa s not c onsiste nt with the tre at m e nt note s from

the VA during there le va

nt pe riod, a

nd the VA disa

bility rating wa s not ba se d on
m e dic a l e vide nc e a fte r 2003. The ALJ found tha t the tre atm e nt note s did not re fle c t
any obje c tive worse ning of Unde rhill’ s ba c k pa in a nd im a ging studie s re ve a le d
m ild de ge ne rat ion of the spine without nerve root c om p rom ise or disc he rniation. Sim ila rly , the ALJ found tha

t the tre atm e nt note s did not re fle c t ongoing shoulde r, kne e , hip, or a

nkle proble m s during thepe riod of disa bility . The ALJ a lso note d that , a lthough Underhill ha d a history of a sthm a

/bronc hitis from

sm o king, m ost of

1 The VA de te rm i ne d tha

t Unde rhill wa s disa

b le d ba se d on the following c onditions: de g e ne rative joint dise a se of the lum ba r spine (20%); le ft shoulde r im pinge m e nt sy

n drom e (10%); right hip bursitis (10%); left hip bursitis (10%); right a nkle te ndonitis (10%); le ft kne e c hondrom a la c ia (10%); right kne e c hondrom a la c ia

(10%); a sthm atic bronc hitis (10%); a nd tinnitus (10%). 4the m e dic a l re c ords la c ke d a ny re c ord of sy

m ptom s. Fina lly , the ALJ found tha t,
e ve n a s sum ing Unde rhill suffe re d from tinnitus, it wa s not disa

bling. The se findings a re supporte d

by the re c ord a

nd unde rm ine the VA disa bility rating. Se e Vale ntine v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 695 (9th C ir. 2009) (holding that “ [t] he ALJ wa s justifie d in re je c ting theVA’ s disa

bility rating on the

ba sis she ha d e vide nc e the VA did not, which unde rm ine d the e vide nc e the VA did ha ve ” ). 3. The ALJ provide d “ spe c ific and le gitim ate re a s ons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord” for disc ounting Dr. Finnerty -Ludwig’ s m e dic a l opinion. Se e Leste r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C ir. 1995) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d). The A L J found tha t Dr. Finne rty -Ludwig’ s opinion wa s c o ntra ry to the opinions of Dr. Suffis a nd Dr. Sta dius, thetre atm e nt note s, the im a ging studie s, a nd the c onse rvative tre atm e nt re c e ive d by Unde rhill. TheALJ a l so note d that Dr. Finne rty -Ludwig did not be g in tre at ing Unde rhill until afte r the date of la st insure d, a nd he r m e dic a l opinion did not re ve a l tha t she ha d re vie we d a ll of the
re le va nt m e dic a l re c ords during the pe riod of disa

b ility . Fina lly , the ALJ c onc lude d that Dr. Finne rty -Ludwig re lie d upon Unde rhill’ s subje c tive c om pla ints of pa in, whic h the ALJ re a sona

bly re je c te d. 4. The ALJ provide d “ c l e ar and c onvinc ing re a sons” for giving little
we ight to Dr. Re z va

ni’ s e va luation. Se e Ry an v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 528 F.3d
51194, 1198 (9th C ir. 2008). TheALJ c orre c tly note d tha t Dr. R e z va

ni did not provide a m e d ic a l opinion outlining Unde rhill’ s im pa irm e nts a

nd limita tions. Se e 20 C
. F.R . § 404.1527(a

)(1). Ne ve rthe le ss, e v e n if Dr. R e z va ni ha d provide d a
m e dic a l opinion, the

ALJ re a sona

bly found tha

t Dr. R e z va

ni’ s opinion wa s
c ontra ry to the im a ging studie s, tre atm e nt note s, a nd c onse rvative tre atm e nt. Furthe rm ore , Dr. R e z va

ni ha d re lie d upon Unde rhill’ s subje c tive c om pla ints, whic h the ALJ found not c re dible , a nd Dr. R e z va

ni ha d not re vie w e d Unde rhill’ s
norm a l stre ss te st. 5. The ALJ did not err in his ste p five e va luation. Unde rhill’ s a sse rtions that the ALJ e rre d at ste p 5 m e re ly re sta te pre vious a

rgum e nts a

nd the re fore fa il for the s am e re a sons disc usse d a b ove . 2 Se e Stubbs-Danie lson v . Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1175–76 (9th C ir. 2008). Substa ntia l e vide n c e supports the ALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity a sse s sm e nt ; thus, the

ALJ’ s hy p othe tic a l propounde d to the
voc ationa l e xpe rt prope rly inc l ude d “ those im

pa irm e nts tha

t [we re ] supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord.” Se e Ose nbroc k v . Apfe l , 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th C ir. 2001).

2 On a ppe a l, Unde rhill a

rgue s tha t the ALJ did not provide

him with a de novo re vie w. Howe ve r, Unde rhill did not m ake this a rgum e nt be fore the distric t c ourt, thus the argum e nt is forfe ite d. Se e Gre ge r v . Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th C ir. 2006). 6AFFIRM E D.

7