Court Opinion

ID: 9907562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 18:01:22.209138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:59:53.747439
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 6 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHANEL MORENO,                                  No.    22-36031

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05173-DWC

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

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                  David W. Christel, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 4, 2023**
                              Seattle, Washington

Before: N.R. SMITH, SANCHEZ, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

      Appellant Chanel Moreno seeks review of a district court order affirming a

decision by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying Moreno’s application

for Period of Disability and Disability Insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction

      *
             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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s

denial of benefits de novo, and will not overturn the denial “unless it is either not

supported by substantial evidence or is based upon legal error.” Luther v.

Berryhill, 891 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

      When determining whether a claimant is eligible for benefits, an ALJ need

not take every medical opinion at “face value.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1155

(9th Cir. 2020). Instead, the ALJ must scrutinize the various—often conflicting—

medical opinions to determine how much weight to give each opinion. Id. ALJs

look to a number of factors, with a specific focus on whether the explanation

supports the opinion and whether the opinion is consistent with the other evidence

on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a)–(c).1 “[A]n ALJ cannot reject an

examining or treating doctor’s opinion as unsupported or inconsistent without

providing an explanation supported by substantial evidence.” Woods v. Kijakazi,

32 F.4th 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2022).

      1.     Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discredit Dr.

Brown’s pre-surgery handling opinion as unsupported and inconsistent. To start,

Dr. Brown’s handling opinion is inconsistent with his own treatment notes, which

indicate that, before surgery, Moreno’s hands appeared normal and that she had

      1
        Because Moreno applied for benefits after March 27, 2017, the ALJ’s
evaluation of the medical opinion evidence was governed by 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520c.

                                           2
average grip strength and no obvious joint swelling. It is also at odds with other

record evidence showing that, before surgery, Moreno disclaimed any tingling or

weakness in her hands, and that Moreno had 4/5 grip strength and could make a

fist, touch her thumb and fingertips, and pick up a coin.

      2.     Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discredit three

aspects of Dr. Henegan’s opinion as unsupported and inconsistent. To start, Dr.

Henegan’s reaching opinion is not supported by his own exam notes that show that

Moreno could reach to take her shoes on and off and that Moreno had normal

muscle bulk and tone in her arms. Similarly, Dr. Henegan’s standing/walking

opinion conflicts with record evidence that shows that Moreno does not have

difficulties with her lower extremities. Additionally, Dr. Henegan’s stooping

opinion is inconsistent with evidence that shows that Moreno only has mild-to-

moderate back abnormalities.

      3.     Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discredit four

aspects of Dr. Porter’s opinion because they are unsupported and inconsistent. To

start, Dr. Porter’s off-task and attendance opinions are unsupported and

inconsistent. Dr. Porter expressed her off-task and attendance opinions by

checking boxes on a form. She did not offer further explanation for the opinions

she expressed, which cuts against supportability. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1155.

Additionally, Dr. Porter’s attendance and off-task opinions are at odds with the

                                          3
longitudinal record, which shows that Moreno was able to complete solitary

activities like grocery shopping and laundry, and displayed basic cognitive

capabilities including: memory, command of current events, concentration,

calculations, abstract thinking, and judgment.

      Dr. Porter’s handling and reaching opinions are also unsupported and

inconsistent. Dr. Porter expressed her handling and reaching opinions by filling in

blanks on the functional assessment form, but did not provide any elaboration. Dr.

Porter’s opinions are also at odds with other record evidence. For example, Dr.

Porter’s handling opinion is inconsistent with one of her earlier notes indicating

that Moreno’s “[h]ands appear normal [bilaterally with] no obvious joint swelling

or erythema” and with “[n]ormal grip” strength. Similarly, Dr. Porter’s overhead

reaching opinion is at odds with other evidence showing that Moreno had normal

strength in her arms, a full range of motion in her joints, and normal muscle bulk

and tone.

      4.     Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discredit aspects

of Dr. Fisher’s opinion as unsupported and inconsistent. Like Dr. Porter, Dr.

Fisher did little to explain her opinions beyond filling out the physical functional

assessment check-box form, which cuts against supportability, Ford, 950 F.3d at

1155. Dr. Fisher’s opinions are also inconsistent with the longitudinal record. Dr.

Fisher’s off-task and attendance opinions are inconsistent for the same reasons that

                                          4
Dr. Porter’s off-task and attendance opinions are inconsistent. Further, Dr.

Fisher’s stooping opinion conflicts with evidence that shows that Moreno only has

mild-to-moderate back abnormalities, and that Moreno’s back was improving with

physical therapy and medication.

      5.     Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discredit portions

of Dr. Gibson’s testimony because they are unsupported and inconsistent with the

record. Dr. Gibson’s attendance opinion is inconsistent for the same reasons that

Dr. Porter’s attendance opinion is inconsistent. Additionally, Dr. Gibson’s stress

opinion is at odds with his own exam notes, which indicate that Moreno handled

the stress of the examination well, save for some nervousness and mild agitation.

It is also inconsistent with evidence indicating that Moreno functioned relatively

well in spite of her depression and anxiety.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          5