Court Opinion

ID: 9892624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 17:02:52.379033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:29.348864
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         OCT 24 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LISA STEIRER,                                    No.    22-16792

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00932-DLR

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

                Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted October 20, 2023**
                                 Phoenix, Arizona

Before: IKUTA, BADE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Lisa Steirer appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s

decision denying Steirer’s application for disability benefits under Title II of the

      *
             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).
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review the district court’s order de novo and the agency’s decision for

substantial evidence and legal error. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009–10

(9th Cir. 2014). We must affirm the denial of benefits “where the evidence is

susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d

1035, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

      1.     The ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial

evidence for discounting Steirer’s symptom testimony. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue,

504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007). The ALJ detailed how the evidence

conflicted with Steirer’s testimony as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting

effects of her symptoms. The evidence included objective medical findings,

Steirer’s history of conservative pain treatment, and her ability to complete a wide

array of daily activities despite the impairments and symptoms. See Meanel v.

Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a claimant’s subjective

testimony about pain intensity because her “claim that she experienced pain

approaching the highest level imaginable was inconsistent with the ‘minimal,

conservative treatment’ that she received”); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284

(9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that an ALJ may consider, among other factors, “the

      1
        The Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision became the final agency
decision after the Appeals Council declined review.

                                          2
claimant’s daily activities” when assessing the credibility of a claimant (footnote

and citations omitted)). Accordingly, the ALJ supported her decision to discount

Steirer’s subjective testimony with specific, clear, and convincing reasons.

      2.     Steirer asserts that the ALJ lacked a legally adequate reason to reject

certain medical opinions. The ALJ did not err. The ALJ evaluated the consistency

and supportability of the opinions by weighing each against objective clinical

findings, Steirer’s reported activities, and her history of conservative treatment.

See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a). Based on the ALJ’s interpretation of the evidence,

she rejected the medical opinions of Dr. Salari and Dr. Kahn as extreme. Because

the record supports her interpretation, “[w]e must uphold the ALJ’s decision.”

Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039; see also Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154–55 (9th Cir.

2020) (holding that conflicts between a medical opinion and the physician’s own

notes or a claimant’s activity level are “specific and legitimate reasons” for

rejecting the opinion (citations omitted)). See generally Garrison, 759 F.3d

at 1012 (“An ALJ can satisfy the substantial evidence requirement by setting out a

detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence,

stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings.” (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted)).

      3.     Finally, the ALJ did not err at step four because the hypothetical

question she posed to the vocational expert incorporated all the limitations that she

                                           3
found were supported by substantial record evidence. See Magallanes v. Bowen,

881 F.2d 747, 756–57 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that a proper hypothetical need only

include restrictions that are supported by substantial evidence). Thus, the ALJ

properly relied on the testimony of the vocational expert in response to that

hypothetical.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          4