Court Opinion

ID: 9402056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 22:00:35.7523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.156946
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 14 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIRAJO J. SHIMAKONIS,                           No.   22-35443

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05569-BAT

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

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                   Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 8, 2023**
                               Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Tirajo Shimakonis (“Shimakonis”) appeals the district court’s order affirming

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

      *
             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).
insurance benefits.    We review the Commissioner’s decision for substantial

evidence, Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

I.    Medical Opinion Evidence

      A.     Dr. Goldfine

      Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to disregard a portion of Dr.

Goldfine’s opinion in which Goldfine concluded that Shimakonis was chronically

fatigued, lacked motivation, and had difficulty maintaining attention and

concentration, and that this would make it difficult reliably to sustain a normal work

routine. The ALJ concluded this opinion was inconsistent with Shimakonis’s “active

lifestyle, which has included caring for a young child which can be quite demanding

both physically and emotionally.”

      A conflict between a doctor’s opinion and a claimant’s activity level

constitutes a valid basis for rejecting the opinion. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141,

1154‒55 (9th Cir. 2020). This circuit has previously discounted “restrictions [that]

appear to be inconsistent with the level of activity that [a claimant] engage[s] in by

maintaining a household and raising two young children with no significant

assistance.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Smartt

v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499‒500 (9th Cir. 2022) (finding claimant’s daily

activities—including caring for her daughter by bathing, feeding, and taking her to

school—“require many of the same capabilities . . . necessary for obtaining and

                                          2
maintaining employment”). Moreover, the ALJ mentioned childcare as one example

of Shimakonis’s active lifestyle; the previous several pages discuss and detail

numerous other examples of her daily activities, and this court must look for the full

explanation in “all the pages of the ALJ’s decision.” Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th

843, 851 (9th Cir. 2022).

      B.     Ms. Huggins and Ms. Becerra

      Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s treatment of the opinions of two

nurse practitioners regarding Shimakonis’s mental health and abilities. The ALJ

discounted these opinions for being inconsistent with one another, “which render the

opinions less persuasive,” and also for being inconsistent with information about

Shimakonis and her daily activities, which included social interactions with her

friend and boyfriend, and carrying out instructions/simple tasks when making

jewelry and quilts. Consistency is one of the two most important factors in assessing

medical opinions under the governing regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2), and

the ALJ gave adequate reasons supported by evidence of inconsistencies between

the two opinions and between the opinions and other evidence in the record. See,

e.g., Ford, 950 F.3d at 1156; Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 792‒93 (9th Cir.

2022).

                                          3
      C.      Dr. Bendheim

      Dr. Bendheim examined Shimakonis in October 2018 and opined she had no

impairment that would impose more than minimal limitations for twelve continuous

months. The ALJ disagreed, noting “the record does support a finding that she has

exertional and postural limitations,” but that the opinion supported the ultimate

conclusion that Shimakonis was not fully disabled.

      It is not entirely clear why Shimakonis is objecting to the ALJ’s treatment of

this opinion, as the ALJ largely rejected the portions of Dr. Bendheim’s opinion that

were unfavorable to her. Nor has Shimakonis explained how the ALJ’s statement

that the opinion otherwise supports the ultimate conclusion of non-disability is

erroneous.1

      II.     Shimakonis and Her Father’s Lay Testimony

      The ALJ did not fully credit Shimakonis’s testimony regarding the intensity,

persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms for a variety of reasons that are

supported by substantial evidence, including: (1) daily activities that were

inconsistent with the severity of her allegations, see Smartt, 53 F.4th at 499‒500;

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012); (2) situational stressors, such

as the death of her mother, a physical assault and a car accident, had created a

1
  To the extent that Shimakonis relies on other medical records and treatment notes
to support her disability claim, this evidence does not show that the ALJ’s non-
disability finding was unsupported by substantial evidence.

                                          4
temporary worsening of mental health symptoms but were unlikely to persist over

time, see Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1998); (3) both her physical

and mental health conditions had improved with treatment such as steroid injections,

diet, and behavioral therapy, see Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir.

2017); and (4) her reported severity of symptoms was inconsistent with medical

evidence, including mental health status examinations and diagnostic imaging that

showed “mild” degenerative changes or spinal abnormalities, see Smartt, 53 F.4th at

498‒99; Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2007).2

      These constitute “specific, clear, and convincing reasons supporting a finding

that [Shimakonis’s] limitations were not as severe as [s]he claimed.” Ahearn v. Saul,

988 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2021). The ALJ also found Shimakonis’s father’s

written report “unpersuasive for the same reasons that the claimant’s own allegations

do not fully persuade,” and these are similarly valid reasons to reject lay witness

testimony. Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir.

2009).

2
     The ALJ also remarked on Shimakonis’s failure to follow treatment
recommendations such as taking medications as prescribed or continuing physical
therapy. However, Shimakonis did notify her physical therapist she needed to “hold
therapy” for childcare reasons, and the record reflects that she did have trouble
remembering to take her medications and was provided a home health aide for
support with medication. In any event, even disregarding this justification, the ALJ
offered other sufficient reasons for discounting her testimony, which were supported
by substantial evidence. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1156 n.8.

                                          5
      Having given sufficient explanations for discounting the medical opinions,

Shimakonis’s testimony, and her father’s written statement, the ALJ properly

determined Shimakonis’s residual functional capacity, and the questions posed to

the vocational expert contained all relevant limitations.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          6