Court Opinion

ID: 9398509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 16:01:42.250348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.037606
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            MAY 31 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN P. O’BRIEN,                                 No.   22-35285

              Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 6:20-cv-01998-JR

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

              Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                    Jolie A. Russo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted April 21, 2023
                                Portland, Oregon

Before: RAWLINSON, BEA, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

      John O’Brien (O’Brien) appeals the denial of his application for Social

Security benefits by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      “We review a district court’s judgment de novo and set aside a denial of

benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal

error.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 494 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citation

and alteration omitted). “Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one

rational interpretation, the ALJ’s decision must be affirmed.” Id. (citation

omitted).

      1.     Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s discounting of O’Brien’s

subjective testimony regarding the extent of his physical and mental impairments.

The ALJ provided “clear and convincing reasons” for discounting O’Brien’s

symptom testimony, and discussed the facts supporting his conclusions. Id. at 497.

The ALJ identified the discounted testimony, and specified the medical evidence

that supported his determination.

      The medical records consistently documented that O’Brien had

unremarkable imaging, normal movement, limited range of motion, normal

strength, and no deformities or abnormalities. O’Brien also exhibited normal

mood, responded well to interventions, improved while in therapy, and was alert,

engaged, and oriented. See id. at 498 (“When objective medical evidence in the

                                           2
record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may

indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony. . . .”) (citation omitted).

      2.     Contrary to O’Brien’s argument, the ALJ did not reject Dr. Alan

Silver’s medical opinion. Rather, the ALJ incorporated the medical opinion into

the residual functional capacity (RFC) determination of light work, no overhead

reaching with the left arm, “only occasional interaction with coworkers or

supervisors, no interaction with the general public,” and “a static work

environment.” See Turner v. Comm’r, 613 F.3d 1217, 1223 (9th Cir. 2010)

(concluding that the ALJ incorporated the medical expert’s observations when the

RFC was consistent with those observations).

      To the extent O’Brien contends that the ALJ was required to consider Dr.

Silver’s opinion regarding O’Brien’s ability to work, he is mistaken. The

determination of whether a claimant can work is reserved to the Commissioner.

See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920b(c)(3)(i) (“Statements that you are or are not . . . able to

work, or able to perform regular or continuing work” are “inherently neither

valuable nor persuasive” because such determinations are reserved to the

Commissioner.).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           3