Terri Plumb v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRI PLUMB, No. 22-15488
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08223-JJT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2023
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: GRABER, BENNETT, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Terri Plumb appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of
Social Security’s denial of her 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 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We affirm.
Ms. Plumb raises one issue on appeal. She argues that the Administrative Law
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Judge (“ALJ”) erred by giving “little weight” to the medical opinion of her treating
physician, Dr. Retay, who found that Ms. Plumb has significant functional
limitations. The ALJ instead relied on the medical opinions of two non-examining
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) physicians who found that Ms. Plumb can
perform light work.
If another doctor contradicts a treating physician’s opinion, “the ALJ may
discount the treating physician’s opinion by giving specific and legitimate reasons
that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d
1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir.
2021) (quoting Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded
by regulation on other grounds). The ALJ gave adequate reasons for discounting Dr.
Retay’s opinion based on substantial evidence in the record.
The ALJ gave four reasons for discounting the opinion: (1) Dr. Retay did not
perform in-depth physical examinations to support her opinion; (2) Dr. Retay did not
rely on enough objective evidence to support the “extreme” limitations she attributed
to Ms. Plumb; (3) Dr. Retay is not entitled to higher weight as an orthopedic or
neurological specialist; and (4) the SSA physicians’ opinions were more consistent
with Ms. Plumb’s “routine and conservative care.” The ALJ’s first reason was not
2
supported by substantial evidence because Dr. Retay’s treatment notes show that she
gave Ms. Plumb nine physical examinations before issuing her medical opinion. The
ALJ’s other reasons, however, are based on enough evidence that “a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate.” Ahearn, 988 F.3d at 1115. In particular, after considering
and summarizing the medical record evidence, the ALJ reasonably found that Ms.
Plumb’s “treatment remained the same throughout the relevant period,” which
supports “the conclusion that [Ms. Plumb] remained capable of performing her past
work.” See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the
ALJ properly discounted a treating physician’s “extreme” opinion when the
physician “prescribed a conservative course of treatment”).
AFFIRMED.
3