Court Opinion

ID: 9394165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 16:00:56.297268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.604075
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            MAY 12 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOE LESTER, Jr.,                                 No.   22-35425

              Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05487-JRC

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

              Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Washington
                  J. Richard Creatura, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 10, 2023**
                                Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      Joe Wayne Lester Jr. challenges the district court’s decision affirming the

Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his applications for disability insurance

      *
             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).
benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and affirm.

      Substantial evidence supports the determination by the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) that Lester has a residual functional capacity (RFC) of light work with

certain limitations. The ALJ identified specific and legitimate reasons to not give

full weight to the opinions of non-examining physicians Dr. Baylor and Dr. Palasi,

which include inconsistencies with the opinion of an examining physician, Dr.

Sethi, Lester’s physical examination records, Lester’s conservative treatment, and

Dr. Palasi’s conclusory opinion. See Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 495–96 (9th

Cir. 2022); Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2020); Rollins v.

Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001); Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 253

(9th Cir. 1996). That Dr. Palasi has a professional duty to provide accurate

assessments does not undermine the ALJ’s specific and legitimate reasons for

discounting her opinion.

      The ALJ identified germane reasons to discount the opinion of nurse

practitioner Oman, namely inconsistencies with Dr. Sethi’s report, Oman’s

examination reports, and Lester’s daily activities. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d

1104, 1111–12 (9th Cir. 2012); Coleman v. Saul, 979 F.3d 751, 757 (9th Cir.

2020).

                                          2
      Nor did the ALJ err in discounting Dr. Baylor and Oman’s opinions

regarding Lester’s functional limitations, despite their medical expertise, because

an RFC determination is “reserved to the Commissioner” and is not a medical

opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

      The ALJ identified specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject Lester’s

“statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms,”

which include inconsistencies with Lester’s physical examination records and

conservative treatment, which Lester does not challenge on appeal. See Molina,

674 F.3d at 1113; Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750–51 (9th Cir. 2007); Smartt,

53 F.4th at 497–98, 500. Contrary to Lester’s contention, the ALJ did address and

properly disregard Lester’s testimony about medication side effects because it was

inconsistent with Dr. Sethi’s examination report.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3