Court Opinion

ID: 9405458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 17:00:50.260404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.352698
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 28 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERMAN F. MEIER,                                No.    22-35386

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00758-SI

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Oregon
                   Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 16, 2023**
                                Portland, Oregon

Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District
Judge.

      Herman Meier appeals the district court’s order affirming an Administrative

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
            The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision denying his claim for supplemental security income.

Meier argues the ALJ erred by rejecting his subjective symptom testimony and by

rejecting his neighbor’s lay witness testimony. Meier also argues the ALJ’s finding

that his medically determinable impairments were not severe is unsupported by

substantial evidence. We review de novo the district court’s ruling and may set aside

the ALJ’s denial of benefits only for legal error or lack of substantial evidence.

Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

      1. Contrary to Meier’s argument on appeal, the ALJ did not fully reject his

subjective symptom testimony. Rather, the ALJ noted specific discrepancies in

Meier’s testimony that undercut his other “statements concerning the intensity,

persistence and limiting effects of [his] symptoms.” The ALJ was required to

“evaluate whether the [symptom] statements [were] consistent with objective

medical evidence and the other evidence,” SSR 16-3p, 81 Fed. Reg. 14166, 14169

(Mar. 16, 2016); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (2016), and ultimately concluded

that Meier’s symptom statements were “not entirely consistent with the medical

evidence and other evidence in the record”—including Meier’s own testimony

before the ALJ. By citing the discrepancies in Meier’s testimony and objective

medical evidence throughout his analysis, the ALJ provided “specific, clear, and

convincing reasons” to support the finding that Meier’s claim of severe impairment

was not consistent with the record as a whole. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995,

                                         2
1010 (9th Cir. 2014).

      2. The ALJ provided germane reasons for assigning “little weight” to the

opinions expressed by Meier’s neighbor.        Similar to the handling of Meier’s

statements, the ALJ explained that the neighbor’s opinions were inconsistent with

both the objective medical evidence in the record and the conclusions of state agency

medical consultants. “In light of our conclusion that the ALJ provided clear and

convincing reasons for [discounting Meier’s] own subjective complaints, and

because [his neighbor’s] testimony was similar to such complaints, it follows that

the ALJ also gave germane reasons for rejecting her testimony.” Valentine v.

Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009).

      3. The ALJ’s conclusion that Meier did not suffer from a severe impairment

or a severe combination of impairments over a 12-month period is supported by

substantial evidence. The ALJ noted that Meier suffers from a degenerative disc

disease of the lumbar spine and arthritis in his right foot but found these impairments

were not severe, citing medical records indicating Meier exhibited normal strength,

gait, posture, and mobility over the relevant period. This finding is consistent with

Meier’s testimony that he experiences acute instances of severe back pain but treats

the pain with Tylenol and is not seeking specialized treatment for his back.

      Meier was briefly hospitalized due to diabetic ketoacidosis, but the ALJ

referenced medical records indicating that the hospitalization was a result of Meier’s

                                          3
failure to take his medicine and that his diabetes is largely controlled by such

medication. Although Meier experienced a severe, but short, “flare” in his psoriasis

around March 2018, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that this

condition was also generally controlled by treatment. Although Meier uses an

inhaler and was briefly hospitalized for respiratory failure, the ALJ reasonably

observed that Meier denied any respiratory symptoms a couple of months later.

      Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Meier’s remaining

impairments—which are largely unaddressed on appeal—did not contribute to the

severity of his symptoms. The ALJ’s conclusions are also unanimously supported

by the opinions of four separate state agency medical and psychological consultants.

      On this record, the ALJ’s determination that Meier did not suffer from a severe

impairment or a severe combination of impairments is supported by substantial

evidence.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         4