Michelle Pouppirt v. Commissioner Social Security , 609 F. App'x 440 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHELLE R. POUPPIRT, No. 12-35361
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00114-BR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
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 June 29, 2015**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Michelle R. Pouppirt appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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. At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that, despite Pouppirt’s severe impairments
of endometriosis and interstitial cystitis, she could perform her past relevant work.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo. Molina v.
Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm the district court’s
judgment.
The ALJ did not err in finding that Pouppirt was not entirely credible. See
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2014). He supported his
finding with specific, clear and convincing reasons by citing inconsistencies
between Pouppirt’s hearing testimony and other evidence, including a treating
doctor’s notes, Pouppirt’s demeanor at the hearing, her function report from 2006,
her statements to a consulting psychologist, and her work history. See Ghanim v.
Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2014); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112-13.
The district court correctly concluded that any error in the ALJ’s failure to
identify additional severe impairments beyond endometriosis and interstitial cystitis
at step two was harmless because the ALJ resolved step two in Pouppirt’s favor.
See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, substantial
evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Pouppirt’s somatoform disorder did not
significantly limit her ability to perform the full range of light work. See id.
2
(holding that in assessing claimant’s residual functional capacity, ALJ must
consider the limitations and restrictions imposed by all of her impairments, even
those that are not severe). Moreover, the evidence before the ALJ, considered
together with new evidence accepted by the Appeals Council, supported the ALJ’s
finding that Pouppirt’s migraine headaches caused only transient or mild symptoms
and limitations, or were well-controlled with medication, and thus did not prevent
her from performing the full range of light work. See Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 682 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that “when the Appeals Council
considers new evidence in deciding whether to review a decision of the ALJ, that
evidence becomes part of the administrative record, which the district court must
consider when reviewing the Commissioner’s final decision for substantial
evidence”).
AFFIRMED.
3