Court Opinion

ID: 9379418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 17:01:20.021635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.718207
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 15 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRI PLUMB,                                    No.    22-15488

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08223-JJT

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

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted March 9, 2023
                               Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: GRABER, BENNETT, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      Terri Plumb appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of

Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We affirm.

      Ms. Plumb raises one issue on appeal. She argues that the Administrative Law

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Judge (“ALJ”) erred by giving “little weight” to the medical opinion of her treating

physician, Dr. Retay, who found that Ms. Plumb has significant functional

limitations. The ALJ instead relied on the medical opinions of two non-examining

Social Security Administration (“SSA”) physicians who found that Ms. Plumb can

perform light work.

      If another doctor contradicts a treating physician’s opinion, “the ALJ may

discount the treating physician’s opinion by giving specific and legitimate reasons

that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d

1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir.

2021) (quoting Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded

by regulation on other grounds). The ALJ gave adequate reasons for discounting Dr.

Retay’s opinion based on substantial evidence in the record.

      The ALJ gave four reasons for discounting the opinion: (1) Dr. Retay did not

perform in-depth physical examinations to support her opinion; (2) Dr. Retay did not

rely on enough objective evidence to support the “extreme” limitations she attributed

to Ms. Plumb; (3) Dr. Retay is not entitled to higher weight as an orthopedic or

neurological specialist; and (4) the SSA physicians’ opinions were more consistent

with Ms. Plumb’s “routine and conservative care.” The ALJ’s first reason was not

                                         2
supported by substantial evidence because Dr. Retay’s treatment notes show that she

gave Ms. Plumb nine physical examinations before issuing her medical opinion. The

ALJ’s other reasons, however, are based on enough evidence that “a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate.” Ahearn, 988 F.3d at 1115. In particular, after considering

and summarizing the medical record evidence, the ALJ reasonably found that Ms.

Plumb’s “treatment remained the same throughout the relevant period,” which

supports “the conclusion that [Ms. Plumb] remained capable of performing her past

work.” See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the

ALJ properly discounted a treating physician’s “extreme” opinion when the

physician “prescribed a conservative course of treatment”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3