Court Opinion

ID: 9372428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 17:00:26.024002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:35.411587
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

SUSAN V. ZIMMERMAN,                             No.    20-35853

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01688-BR

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

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Oregon
                    Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2023**

Before:      D. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

      Susan V. Zimmerman appeals pro se the district court’s affirmance of the

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

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction

      *
             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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo, Attmore v.

Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

      The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) provided specific clear and

convincing reasons to discount Zimmerman’s symptom testimony by citing to

significant gaps in Zimmerman’s treatment, Zimmerman’s failure to follow

through with treatment recommendations, and inconsistencies between the

objective medical evidence and the limitations alleged. See Fair v. Bowen, 885

F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding “unexplained, or inadequately explained,

failure to seek treatment” can constitute a clear and convincing reason for

discounting a claimant’s credibility regarding their symptoms); Regennitter v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 166 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that

inconsistency with objective evidence is a clear and convincing reason to discredit

a claimant’s testimony); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005)

(“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the

ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.”).

      The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Crone’s medical opinion that Zimmerman

was incapable of work based on Zimmerman’s limited treatment prior to the

opinion and the lack of supporting medical evidence in the record. See Coleman v.

Saul, 979 F.3d 751, 757 (9th Cir. 2020) (determining that the ALJ provided

specific and legitimate reasons to discount opinions of claimant’s treating

                                           2
physicians as the alleged severe limitations were unsupported by the record);

Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The ALJ need not accept

the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief,

conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.”) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

      Contrary to Zimmerman’s contention, because the record was neither

ambiguous nor inadequate, no medical expert was needed to determine an onset

date of disability. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th Cir. 2001);

SSR 18-01p. Zimmerman’s argument that the ALJ erred in not considering the

additional evidence before the Appeals Council is unpersuasive.

      Before the district court, Zimmerman failed to raise some of the issues she

raises here: whether the ALJ erred in evaluating Dr. Jones’ opinion; whether the

ALJ erred in addressing the third-party statement; whether the ALJ erred by failing

to order a consultative examination; and whether the ALJ properly considered

Zimmerman’s impairments of chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia in

assessing her residual functional capacity and in posing the hypothetical question

to the vocational expert. Zimmerman, therefore, has forfeited or waived these

arguments. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding

that this court will generally not consider an issue raised for the first time on

appeal).

                                           3
AFFIRMED.

            4