Court Opinion

ID: 9449302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:01:09.509505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:21.761648
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 4 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DWIGHT D. JOHNSTON, Jr.,                        No.    20-36109

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01648-CL

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

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Oregon
                   Mark D. Clarke, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted August 2, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

      Dwight D. Johnston, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application

for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II

      *
             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).
and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875

(9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

      The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in evaluating the medical

evidence. See Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2020) (this court will

reverse only if the ALJ’s decision “contains legal error or is not supported by

substantial evidence” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Substantial

evidence supports the ALJ’s findings that Johnston required only “conservative

treatment” for his gastrointestinal illnesses and that findings on mental status exam

were largely “unremarkable.” See id. at 1156 (this court must uphold the ALJ’s

rational interpretation of the evidence). We do not consider the medical and

photographic evidence attached to Johnston’s opening brief that is not part of the

administrative record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (judicial review is based “upon the

pleadings and transcript of the record”).

      We reject Johnston’s contention that the ALJ committed harmful error at

step two by failing to list various conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux

disease, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia, and bipolar disorder, as severe

impairments. Because the ALJ resolved this step in Johnston’s favor and

considered all of Johnston’s pain and mental health symptoms in the remainder of

                                            2                                  20-36109
the analysis, any alleged error was harmless. See Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040,

1049 (9th Cir. 2017).

      The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons to assign moderate weight

to the controverted opinion of consulting psychologist Molly McKenna as not

entirely consistent with or supported by the medical record. See Ford, 950 F.3d at

1154. The ALJ provided germane reasons to discount the opinion of treating

counselor Jacob Moss as inconsistent with and lacking support from the record.

See Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017) (ALJ must provide

germane reasons to reject an “other source” opinion). The ALJ provided specific

and legitimate reasons to assign no weight to treating physician Peter Mahr’s

concurrence with counselor Moss’s opinion for the same reasons, and because Dr.

Mahr’s concurrence was conclusory and lacked explanation. See Ford, 950 F.3d at

1154 (ALJ need not accept a conclusory opinion). The ALJ likewise provided a

specific and legitimate reason to assign no weight to Dr. Mahr’s statement

concerning Johnston’s ability to enter vocational rehab because it provided no

information concerning Johnston’s functional capacity. See id. at 1156 (ALJ may

reject an opinion for failure to provide information that is useful for determining

the claimant’s functional capacity).

                                          3                                    20-36109
      The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discredit

Johnston’s symptom testimony as inconsistent with the medical record and with

Johnston’s activities. See Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1116–17 (9th Cir. 2021).

      We decline to consider Johnston’s remaining contentions because he failed

to raise them before the district court. See Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 500–01

(9th Cir. 2022) (issues not raised to the district court generally are waived).

      We deny all pending motions.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           4                                      20-36109