T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T N A N CY L. FU LLER, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C om m i s s i one rof S o ci al S ecu ri ty, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 17734 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 -cv -0 1 6 1 4 -F JM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona F r e de r i c k J . M a rt one , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry16, 2012 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: G R A B E R , B E R Z O N , an dT A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N a n c yF u lle rap p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h e rap p lic a tio n f

o rs o c ia l s e c u r ity d isab il ity in su ra n ce b en ef it s. B ec au se w e c o n clu d e th at th e C o m m issio n er ’s



# FI LED MA R 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

deci si on w as base d o n the corre ctl egalst andards and supp ort ed by subst ant i al e v id e n c e , P a g ter v. M

a ssa n a ri , 2 5 0 F. 3 d1 2 5 5 , 1 2 5 8 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) , w e a f f i rm. 1. T he adm i ni strat i ve l aw j ud ge (“ A L J” ), w ho se deci si on the C om m i ss i on er af fi rm ed, art i cul at ed spec i fi c and l egi t i m at e r ea sons for r ej ec t i ng the op i ni on of D r. R ile y , F u lle r ’s tr e a tin g p h y s ic ian . Se e O rn v . A s tr ue , 49 5 F . 3d 62 5, 63 2 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). T he A L J not ed thatspec i al i st s w ho exam i ned F ul l erdi sa gree d w i th D r. R ile y ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t s h e w a s d is ab le d . See 20 C . F . R . § 4 04 . 15 27 (d)( 5). D r. L ee not e d tha tF ul l e r ’ s m y e l opr ol i f e r a t i ve di s e a s e di d notc aus e s y m pt om s a nd tha ts he f e l tw e l l ; D r . L i ps c hul t z not e d tha tF ul l e r ’ s l ungs w e r e ge ne r a l l yc l e a ra nd tha ts he st abi l i ze d n i ce l y w i th m edi cat i on ; and D r. D i l l a anal yz ed an M R I of F ul l er ’ s bac k an dco n clu d ed th at sh e w as n o t d isab led . T h e A L J a lso o b se rv ed th at D r. R il ey ’s o p in io n s w e r e c o n c lu s o rya n dd idn o t p r o v id e s up p o rtin g e v id e n c e . See L i nge nf e l te rv . A s tr ue , 50 4 F . 3d 10 28 , 10 45 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). 2. T he A L J di d n oterr i n fai l i ng t o exp l i ci t l y s t at e F ul l er ’ s m ent al li m it atio n s in h is as se ss m en t o f h erre sidu al fu n ctio n al cap ac ity. N o n e o f F u ll er ’s m e n ta l lim ita tio n s w a s in c o n s is te n t w ith th e A L J ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t s h e w a s ab le to perf orm un ski l l ed, “ si m pl e, re pet i t i ve w ork. ” See B ray v . C om m ’rof So c. Sec. A dm i n. , 5 5 4 F . 3 d1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 8

– 2 9 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). D r. G eo rg e n o t edth at“ th e t est re sul t s do n otsugg es tdi ff i cul t i es t o fun ct i on on a j ob ”; D r. W al dm an foun d F ul l er3

“ c apabl e ” ; a nd D r . B e rm a n r a t e d F ul l e r“ unl i m i t e d” i n m os tc a t e gor i e s of j ob sk i l l s. 3 . T h e A L J m ad e “ sp eci fi c fi n d i n g s st at i n g cl ear an dco n v i n ci n g reaso n s” f o rr e je c tin g F u lle r ’s s ub

je c tiv e c o m p la in ts . See Sm olen v. Cha ter , 80 F . 3d 1273, 1284 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . F ul l e r ’ s s ubj e c t i ve c om pl a i nt s w e r e c ontr a di c t e d bythe m edi ca l re cord, i ncl ud i ng the t es t i m on y of tre at i ng ph ys i ci ans, w ho concl ud ed that s he w a s nots e r i ous l yi m pa i r e d, a nd c l i ni c a l obs e rva t i ons of he rs e ns a t i on, s tr e ngth, g a it, r e f le x e s , a n dr a n g e o f

m o tio n . Se e Carm i c kle v . C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 5 3 3 F .3 d1 1 5 5 , 1 1 6 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . 4. T he A L J’ s use of the M edi ca l -V ocat i on alG ui del i nes ( the “ G ri ds”) w as n o ti m p ro p er. F u l l er’ s n o n -ex ert i o n al l i m i t at i o n s w ere n o t“ su ffi ci en t l y sev ere so as t o si gn i fi cant l y l i m i tthe rang e of w ork p erm i tt ed by [her ] exert i on al l i m i t at i on s. ” H

oopaiv . A s tr ue , 49 9 F . 3d 10 71 , 10 75 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( i nt ernal quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . A l though the A L Jdi d e rri n appl y i ng the G r i ds f or “lig h t,” r a th e rth a n “s e d e n tary ,” w o rk , th is e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s . See Strauss v . C om m ’ rof

Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 63 5 F . 3d 11 35 , 11 38 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). AF F I R ME D.