N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ILLIAM T. SM ITH,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, 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. 17-35645 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-05480-TLF
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 T he re sa La

ure n Fric ke , M a g istra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 13, 2018 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : C LIFTON a

n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ATTAGLIA, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUL 20 2018 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Anthony

J. B atta glia , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.W illia m Thom a s Sm ith a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the de te rm i nation tha

t he wa s ine ligible for Soc ia l Se c urity disa b ility be ne fits unde r Title II and TitleXVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t m any of Sm ith’ s argum e nts ha d be e n wa i ve d by fa ilure to pre se nt the m

prope rly to the distric t c ourt. In his opening brie f to us, Sm i th did not disc

uss or dire c tly

c h a lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s holding, so tha t
argum e nt wa s wa i ve d on a ppe a l. Though our re vie w m ay be de novo, thefa ilure to pre se nt a

nd e xha u st a rgum e nts to the distric t c ourt is a n inde pe nde nt ba sis for
re je c ting the m . Disc ussing the distric t c ourt’ s holding in the re ply brie f is too la

t e . Se e Gre e n w ood v
. F.A.A. , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 1994). Eve n if not wa ive d for this re a son, Sm ith pre se nts thosec ha lle nge s in the sa m e c onc lusory

m anne r tha

t le d the distric t c ourt to c onc lude tha t the argum e nts ha d be e n insuffic ie ntly pre s e nte d a

nd we re thus wa ive d, a

nd we a gre e with thedistric t c ourt’ s a sse ssm e nt. B e c a use he fa ile d to pre se nt the m with there quisitespe c ific ity in his ope ning brie f, Sm i th’ s c ha lle nge s to the Adm inistra tive La w Judge ’ s (ALJ) tre atm e nt of the
re c o rds from

De bra Sanc he z , Ph.D., Donna

Sm ith, Psy .D., C
. R ic ha

rd Johnson, M .D., Danie l M . Ne im s, Ph.D., C arl R e d ic k , Psy .D., Eliz a be th B a in, Ph.D., C ha rle s Le e , M .D., a

nd C o ra l Hilby , M .D., a s we ll a s the ALJ’ s a sse ssm e n t of

2Sm i th’ s Globa l Asse s sm e nt of Func tioning (GAF) sc ore s, a re wa ive d. 1 C

armic k le
v . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin , 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th C i r. 2008); se e also Ghanim v . C

olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th C ir. 2014) (fa ilure to ra ise an argum e nt be fore the distric t c ourt wa ive s tha t argum e nt on a

ppe a l). 2. The ALJ found tha t Sm ith’ s te stim ony

wa s “ not e ntire ly

c re dible ,” and he provide d “ spe c ific , c l e ar and c onvinc ing re a s ons for doing so.” Linge nfe l te r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th C ir. 2007) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). W ith re ga rd to Sm ith’ s a lle ge d phy sic a l im pa irm e nts, the ALJ c ite d e vide nc e of
som e lim ita

tions in Sm

ith’ s uppe r e xtre m i tie s, but a l so e xpla ine d tha t he ha d a

“ norm a l ga it a

n d inta c t stre ngth,” and tha t the only m e dic at ion he e ve r took for his pa in wa s ibuprofe n. Se e Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2008) (sta ting tha t a favora ble re sponse to “ c o nse rvative tre atm e nt unde rm ine s [the
c la im ant’ s] re ports re ga

rding the disa

bling na t ure of his pa in” ). The ALJ a l so note d Sm ith’ s a lle g e d a

nkle pa in, but m e dic a l re c ords showe d a full ra n ge of
m otion in his a

nkle , a s we ll a s his ba c k. M ore ove r, the ALJ pointe d to spe c ific

1 For the sa

m e re a sons, Sm ith’ s c onc lusory argum e nt a

bout thetre atm e nt note s a nd e va luations from

“ Dr. Ka iy a la , Dr. Ne he r, Dr. La R ue , Dr. Le e , Dr. Ziskin, . . . M s. C orle y -W h e e le r, M r. C onn, M r. Throc km orton, M r. C urtis, Dr. Sanc he z M e tz , M r. M illoy , M r. M a c W illia m , M r. C arte r, and M r. Guidry ” is wa ive d. 3pa

rts of the re c ord tha

t showe d tha

t Sm i th’ s a c tivitie s we re inc onsiste nt with his
a lle ge d sy m ptom s an d disa

bling phy sic a l im

pa irm e nts. W ith re ga rd to Sm ith’ s m e nta l he a lth, theALJ e xpla ine d a pa rtic ula rly
se ve re inc ide nt in 2005, but provide d c le ar and c o nvinc ing re a sons for why this did not re fle c t the ove ra ll re c ord. In pa rtic u la r, the ALJ e xpla ine d tha

t the m e dic a l
re c o rds showe d tha

t , e ve n whe n fa c e d with stre ssful situa tions, Smith’ s attitude
and a ppe a ranc e w e re within norm a l lim its. And the ALJ m a de de t a ile d

findings
a bout Sm ith’ s soc i a l func tioning, a nd found tha

t Sm i th “ c o uld ha

ve at le a st supe rfic i a l inte ra c tion with c oworke rs a nd the public within [his] re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity .” Sm ith’ s spe c ific argum e nts c ha lle n ging theALJ’ s c re dibility de te rm i nation a

re e ithe r c onc lusory

or m isre pre se nt the ALJ’ s findings. 3. The ALJ ga

ve c le a r and c onvinc ing re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e for giving little we ight to the re c ords from

Sule Ka rakus, M .D., Leste r v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C ir. 1996), na m e ly , a se rie s of c ontra dic tions in Dr. Karakus’ s own tre atm e nt re c o rds a nd he avy re lia n c e on Sm ith’ s “ le ss tha

n c re dible subje c tive c om

pla ints.” Se c ond, 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 for the we ight he a s signe d to Sm ith’ s e xam ining doc tors’
re c o rds. Se e id. at 830-31. TheALJ e xpla ine d tha t Te d Sta gne r, Psy .D.,
4pe rform e d his e xam inat ion whileSm ith wa s involunta rily c om m itte d for psy c hiatric tre atm e nt in 2005 a nd tha t Dr. Sta g ne r’ s re c ords did not align with Sm i th’ s re porte d a c tivitie s or with other m e dic a l re c ords. The ALJ ga ve som e we ight to the

e xam i nation pe rform e d by Andre wOpa le n ik, D.O., be c a use of inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n his c onsulta tive e xam ination a

nd a s se s sm e nt form , a

nd be c a use his opinion wa s c o n tra dic t e d by Ga ry Ga ffie ld, D.O. And the

ALJ ga ve gre at we i ght to thec onsulta t ive e xam ination pe rform e d by Dr. Ga ffie ld be c a use his opinion wa s c onsiste n t with other opinions in the re c o rd an d with Sm ith’ s re porte d
a c tivitie s. Third, the ALJ ga

ve ge rm ane re a s ons supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e for disc ounting the

opinions of “ othe r sourc e s.” Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th C ir. 2012). Ta de ug Dovia k, M .A., did not perform

a m e nta l e xam ination
and the ALJ found tha

t his a sse ssm e nt re lie d too he avily on Sm ith’ s subje c tive
c om pla i nts. 2 The ALJ a lso ga v e littlewe ight to the

phy sic a l e xam i nation re port from Kathry n Sha w, AR NP, be c a use she wa s not a

n a c c e pta ble m e dic a l sourc e an d be c a use he r re port c onflic te d with Dr. Ga ffie ld’ s opinion. 20 C .F.R
.

2 The re is no e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t Dovia k wa s a n a c c e pta b le m e dic a l sourc e . Se e POM S DI 22505.004 (e xpla ining re quisite c re de ntia ls for psy c hologists); W

arrev . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin , 439 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ The POM S doe s not ha ve the forc e of la

w, but it is pe

rsua sive a uthority .” ). 5§ 416.902(a)(7)-(8). And the ALJ did not err by fa iling to c onside r the re c ords from Shannon M . Ta it, M .A., be c a use she wa s not a

n a c c e p ta ble m e dic a l sourc e , nor we re he r re c ords signific a nt or proba

tive
. Se e Molina , 674 F.3d a t 1111 (stating tha

t c he c k-off form s tha

t do not inc lude e xpla

nations for thec onc lusions sta te d the re in m ay

be re j e c te d); How ard e

x re l. W olff v . Barnhart , 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th C ir. 2003) (e xpla ining tha t a n “ ALJ is not re quire d to disc uss e vide nc e that is ne ithe r signific ant nor proba tive ” ). 4. The ALJ provide d ge rm ane re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e for
a ssigning le ss va lue to the la y te stim ony

from Sm ith’ s m othe r, B e v e rle y Sta rr, and his form e r e m

ploy e r, C he ri B la c k. S

tout v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin , 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th C ir. 2006). Sta rr fa ile d to m e ntion Sm ith’ s history of a lc ohol
a buse a nd she c om

ple te d the form

shortly a fte r Sm ith’ s involunta

ry 2005 tre atm e n t. B la c k worke d with Sm ith be fore his onse t da te and be fore he re c e ive d
m e nta l he a l th tre at

m e nt a nd m e dic ation. 5. The re m a i nde r of Sm ith’ s a rgum e nts a

re e qua lly una va iling. Smith
c ha lle nge s the ALJ’ s finding a t ste p thre e ba se d sole ly

on the ALJ’ s re

je c tion of Dr. Sm ith’ s re p ort, but a

ny argum e nt involving Dr. Sm ith wa s wa ive d. Sm ith a l so argue s tha

t, at ste p s four a

n d five , the ALJ e rre d in his de te rm ination of his R e sidua l Func tiona l C a

pa c ity (RFC ) be c a

use he did not properly

c onside r a ll of the
6m e dic a l re c ords. As e xpla ine d a bove , the ALJ prope rly

we ighe d the m e dic a l
e vide nc e , a

nd the R FC wa s supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . B ay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th C ir. 2005). It follows tha t the ALJ’ s re lia

nc e on the
voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony wa s not in e rror. Se e id. (“ The hy pothe tic a l tha

t the ALJ pose d to the [voc ationa l e xpe rt (VE)] c onta ine d a ll of the lim ita tions tha t the ALJ found c re dible and supporte d by substa ntia l e v i de nc e in the re c ord. The ALJ’ s re lia

nc e on te stim ony

the VE ga

ve in re sponse to the hy

pothe tic a l the re fore
wa s prope r.” ). The ALJ did not err a t ste ps four a nd five
. AFFIRM E D.

7