Court Opinion

ID: 9395270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 17:00:49.339923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:06.808136
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 17 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARIC W. MCGARY,                                 No.   22-55454

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 8:20-cv-01060-JPR

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

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Jean Rosenbluth, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 12, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: HURWITZ and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and KANE,*** District
Judge.

      Aric McGary appeals a district court judgment affirming the denial of his

      *
             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).
      ***
            The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
application for Social Security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

      We review the district court’s decision de novo. Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d

1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the ALJ’s decision should be upheld unless

it “was not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole or if the ALJ

applied the wrong legal standard.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.

2012).

      1.    The ALJ’s rejection of McGary’s testimony was supported by

“specific, clear and convincing reasons,” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014–

15 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996)),

including that McGary received relief from treatment and could independently

perform daily activities.   Even assuming that opioids are not “conservative”

treatment, Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007), McGary also took

other medication, and the relief he experienced after other treatment supports the

ALJ’s conclusion that his back pain was not as severe as he claimed, see Tommasetti

v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008). Moreover, McGary’s daily activities

support the ALJ’s decision. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680–81 (9th Cir.

2005).1

1
       The ALJ’s failure to address McGary’s phantom leg pain was harmless. The
only functional limitation caused by that pain alone was that McGary had to lie down
“monthly” because treatment did not help.

                                         2
      2.    Because the ALJ’s rejection of McGary’s subjective symptom

testimony was not erroneous, neither was the rejection of his father’s testimony,

which mirrored McGary’s. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d

685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009).

      3.    The ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Gulaya’s opinion was supported by

substantial evidence. Although Dr. Gulaya opined that McGary’s anxiety and

depression affected “his ability for sustained concentration” and limited “his

energy/motivation to do regular work,” Dr. Brawer opined that McGary’s “thinking

was organized and goal-directed” and that he “demonstrated adequate attention

span.” “The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in

medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.” Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111,

1115 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.

1995)).

      4.    The ALJ did not fail to address McGary’s mental impairments. The

ALJ’s acceptance of Dr. Brawer’s opinion was supported by substantial evidence,

and that opinion contradicted Dr. Moura’s conclusion that McGary was limited to

tasks involving “simple/detailed 1-3 steps,” and Dr. Brodeske’s similar findings.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3