Court Opinion

ID: 9839951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 18:01:17.377989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:44.972834
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            SEP 14 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEANNA TRIPODO,                                  No. 22-35781

              Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00145-RMP

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

              Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 11, 2023**
                               Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

      Claimant Deanna Tripodo appeals from the district court’s grant of summary

judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security. Tripodo sued, arguing that the

Social Security Administration improperly denied her claims for Social Security

      *
             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).
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. On appeal, she

contends, inter alia, that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly

discounted (1) her subjective symptom testimony and (2) opinions from two

different medical sources.

      We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

district court’s decision to affirm the Social Security Administration’s

determination. Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin, 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir.

2002). We “will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal

error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266,

1270 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Tommasetti v.

Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)). We affirm.

      Among other impairments, Tripodo suffers from right shoulder

osteoarthritis, deep vein thrombosis, anemia, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and

fibromyalgia. She testified before the ALJ that she had constant shoulder and hand

pain. She also testified that she could only stand for fifteen minutes due to fatigue

and that she needed a walker. She testified that she had to elevate her legs most of

the day due to swelling.

      The ALJ may reject claimant’s testimony “only by offering specific, clear[,]

and convincing reasons.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir.

                                          2
2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). For cases filed after March 27, 2017, the

revised social security regulations apply to an ALJ’s evaluation of medical

opinions. Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 790 (9th Cir. 2022). Under these

revised regulations, the most important factor in evaluating a medical source’s

opinion is “supportability” and “consistency.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a).

Substantial evidence must support the ALJ’s evaluation of these factors. Id. at 792.

      The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discrediting

Tripodo’s testimony. Medical evidence in the record contradicted her testimony

about constant shoulder and hand pain because she herself presented at numerous

medical consultations without pain or limitations in her extremities. Additionally,

blood transfusions and iron pills controlled her anemia-induced fatigue. After the

date Tripodo testified she needed a walker, she responded well to physical therapy

to the point where one doctor found she could engage in frequent unassisted

walking and standing. Lastly, she frequently presented at medical consultations

ambulating normally, without swelling in her legs, and without needing to elevate

her legs. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in discrediting her testimony.

      Tripodo relied on an opinion from a doctor of osteopathic medicine to

support her claim of disability. That doctor opined that Tripodo would miss four

or more days of work a month for doctor’s appointments and symptom treatment

                                          3
for her lower extremities. The ALJ found that this opinion was unsupported and

inconsistent with the record, and substantial evidence supports that determination.

The doctor failed to provide any reason why these appointments would cause her

to miss work. Additionally, as noted above, Tripodo often presented at medical

consultations without limitations in her lower extremities.

      Tripodo also relied on an opinion from a doctor of medicine who treated her

shortly after her shoulder surgery. The ALJ’s finding that this opinion was not

supported or consistent with the record is supported by substantial evidence. The

doctor’s opinion concerned the state of her shoulder shortly after surgery, and the

doctor explicitly limited his prognosis to a six-month period after her surgery. As

noted above, Tripodo presented to numerous medical consultations outside of this

six-month period without pain or limitations in her upper extremities.

      We find the remainder of Tripodo’s arguments are waived because they

were either not raised before the district court or not adequately briefed to us. See

One Indus., LLC v. Jim O'Neal Distrib., Inc., 578 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 2009);

Sekiya v. Gates, 508 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“Bare

assertions and lists of facts unaccompanied by analysis and completely devoid of

                                           4
caselaw fall far short of the requirement that counsel present ‘appellant’s

contentions and the reasons for them.’” (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A))).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          5