Court Opinion

ID: 9966253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 16:00:34.201794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:06.397966
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 6 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COLLEEN YOUNG,                                  No.    22-15828

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01952-JDP

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner of
Social Security,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                 Jeremy D. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 6, 2024**

Before:      D. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

      Colleen Young appeals pro se the district court’s affirmance of the

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and we affirm.

      *
             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).
      We review de novo a district court’s order affirming a denial of Social

Security benefits. Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 653–54 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing

Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015)). We may reverse a

denial of benefits only when the decision is “based on legal error or not supported

by substantial evidence in the record.” Id. at 654 (quoting Benton ex rel. Benton v.

Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003)).

      On appeal, Young claims that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in

evaluating the medical opinion evidence. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

decision to afford great weight to the opinions of Dr. van Dam and Dr. Dennis

because of Young’s lack of specific treatment during the relevant period, and

because the opinions were supported by and consistent with the record. See

Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Molina v. Astrue,

674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012).

      Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s decision to generally afford

substantial weight to the opinions of Dr. Williams and Dr. Gerson. Dr. Williams

and Dr. Gerson provided supporting rationales and were entitled to substantial

weight based on Young’s limited treatment during the relevant period. See

Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111; see also Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d

996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015).

                                         2
      The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons to discount speech-

language pathologist Kinney and Dr. Teasdale’s opinions. As the ALJ determined,

the opinions were speculative with respect to Young’s functioning well before

treatment, and the opinions concerned Young’s functioning well after the date she

was last insured. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111; see also Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d

599, 602 (9th Cir. 1998).

      Finally, the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount

Young’s symptom testimony. The ALJ cited specific inconsistencies between

Young’s testimony and the opinions of medical consultants, Young’s limited

treatment during the relevant period, and record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §

404.1529(c)(3); see also Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.

2008); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008).

      We decline to consider the issues Young raises for the first time on appeal.

See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3