Court Opinion

ID: 9403710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 16:01:11.275104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:08.771489
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK SHANE LASHLEY,                             No.    22-15500

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:18-cv-03013-MCE-DB
 v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner            MEMORANDUM*
of Social Security,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 20, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Mark Lashley appeals from the district court’s decision affirming the

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability benefits for the period prior

to March 2016. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them here only

      *
             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).
as necessary to explain our decision.

                                           I

      The ALJ undisputedly erred in summarizing the opinion of Dr. Schmitter. But

“[w]e may affirm the ALJ’s decision even if the ALJ made an error, so long as the

error was harmless, meaning it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability

determination.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). The

plaintiff bears the burden of showing harm. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104,

1111 (9th Cir. 2012).

      Lashley has not met his burden. The ALJ’s misstatement supported the

conclusion that Lashley did not meet the listing-severity threshold. But other

evidence also supported that conclusion, and Lashley presents no argument against

it. There is no reason to believe that the ALJ’s error was consequential to the listing-

severity analysis. Neither could the error have infected the residual-functional-

capacity analysis, since that portion of the ALJ’s decision did not repeat the error,

instead summarizing Dr. Schmitter’s opinion correctly. Finally, the ALJ’s error did

not leave the decision without substantial evidence. Lashley objects to consideration

of medical opinions from an examining family practitioner and from a non-

examining medical advisor, but such opinions can qualify as substantial evidence.

See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). Lashley disagrees

with the ALJ’s reading of the record, but he does not show that the ALJ’s

                                           2
interpretation of the record was not a “rational” one, which is all the substantial

evidence standard requires. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).

                                          II

      Lashley further argues that, due to employment discrimination against felons,

no substantial gainful work exists for him in the national economy, and so he is

eligible for disability benefits. But the applicable statute asks whether, “considering

his age, education, and work experience,” a claimant can “engage in any . . . kind of

substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of . . .

whether he would be hired if he applied for work.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)

(emphasis added). The final clause clearly establishes that employment

discrimination is irrelevant for the disability benefits determination. The ALJ

therefore did not err in declining to consider Lashley’s criminal record.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3