John Drayton v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAY 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JOHN DRAYTON, No. 18-16846
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03056-DMC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, W. FLETCHER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
John Drayton appeals from the district court’s affirmance 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).
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not err in evaluating the medical
record, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) determination. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.
2005) (affirming the RFC where the ALJ “applied the proper legal standard and his
decision is supported by substantial evidence”).
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination, at step four, that
Drayton could perform his past relevant work as actually performed. See
Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008)
(setting out the standard).
The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount
Drayton’s testimony, citing factors including lack of corroborating objective
medical evidence, inconsistent claimant testimony, and inconsistent behavior. See
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4) (the ALJ considers a claimant’s
statements “in relation to the objective medical and other evidence”); Carmickle,
533 F.3d at 1161 (an ALJ may reject a claimant’s testimony in favor of a doctor’s
2
contradictory opinion); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ
properly considered a lack of corroborating medical evidence as one factor in the
credibility determination); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.
2001) (ALJ properly discounted testimony based on claimant’s testimony and
physician’s observations of inconsistent symptom behavior).
AFFIRMED.
3