Court Opinion

ID: 9910452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 18:01:02.151794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:00.025271
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

JEREMY BRENT LORANGER,                          No.    21-35254

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00452-BR

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

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Oregon
                    Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 4, 2023**
                               Portland, Oregon

Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

      Jeremy Loranger appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Social

Security Commissioner’s denial of Loranger’s application for supplemental

security income. This court reviews the district court’s disability determination de

      *
             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).
novo. See Barnes v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 702, 704 (9th Cir. 2018). We set aside a

denial of benefits only if it is based on legal error or unsupported by substantial

evidence. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006).

If an error is found, “the court will not reverse an ALJ’s decision for harmless

error, which exists when it is clear from the record that the ALJ’s error was

inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” Tommasetti v.

Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The harmless error standard requires the court to analyze “the record as a whole to

determine whether the error alters the outcome of the case.” Molina v. Astrue, 674

F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded on other grounds by 20 C.F.R. §

404.1502(a). We affirm.

      Loranger contends that the 2019 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred

by not sufficiently explaining his departure from the residual functional capacity

(“RFC”) as determined by the 2015 ALJ. In relevant part, the 2015 RFC included

a limitation of Loranger’s ability to reach with his upper left extremity in directions

other than overhead. Loranger asserts that the exclusion of that limitation in the

2019 RFC was harmful. Because the record does not support the inclusion of a

left-side limitation, we conclude that any error in failing to explain the deviation

from the 2015 RFC was harmless.

      The evidence presented in the record as a whole does not support adopting

                                           2
an RFC that includes a left side upper extremity reaching limitation. See Molina,

674 F.3d at 1115. Loranger presented one document from March 2016 that

indicated “[p]ain in anterior chest with extension of left arm.” After that date,

there is ample evidence confirming Loranger’s full range of motion with his upper

extremities. Loranger did not testify to any issues concerning his left side during

the second administrative hearing, and his lawyer did not present the Vocational

Expert (“VE”) with a hypothetical including that limitation (although he did

present the VE with a different hypothetical). The ALJ’s rationale for diverging

from the 2015 RFC determination was therefore evident in and fully supported by

the record. No left-side reach limitation was testified to or presented to the VE, and

the pertinent medical record overwhelmingly supported a conclusion that Loranger

had no such limitation. As a result, the ultimate finding of nondisability would

have remained unchanged.

      Because the lack of any additional explanation was “inconsequential to the

ultimate nondisability determination,” if any error existed, it was harmless.

Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1038.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3