James Jones v. Andrew Saul ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES KEVIN JONES, No. 18-15756
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-04433-JAT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 26, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, CLIFTON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
James Kevin Jones appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental social security income under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act (Act). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
*
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).
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 Jones’ symptom testimony as unsupported by the
objective medical evidence, as inconsistent with Jones’ daily activities, for failure
to comply with treatment recommendations, and as contradicted by Jones’
testimony, which suggested a lack of motivation to work. See Burch v. Barnhart,
400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may consider a lack of corroborating
medical evidence as one factor in the credibility determination); Orn v. Astrue, 495
F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may discount a claimant’s testimony if the
claimant’s daily activities contradict the testimony or if the daily activities meet the
threshold for transferable work skills); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113-14
(9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may rely on failure to comply with treatment
recommendations in discounting a claimant’s testimony); Tommasetti v. Astrue,
533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony
about the severity of his symptoms by offering specific, clear and convincing
reasons). Any error in the ALJ’s additional reasons for discounting Jones’
symptom testimony was harmless. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115 (error is harmless
where it is “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination”).
2
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for assigning little weight
to the controverted opinions of Drs. Atiemo and Geohas as inconsistent with the
objective medical evidence, as based on subjective complaints, and as conclusory
and providing little explanation. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359
F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (an ALJ may reject a medical opinion that is
unsupported by objective medical findings); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111 (this court
“must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably
drawn from the record”); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir.
2001) (“When confronted with conflicting medical opinions, an ALJ need not
accept a treating physician’s opinion that is conclusory and brief and unsupported
by clinical findings”). Any error in the ALJ’s additional reasons for discounting
Drs. Atiemo and Geohas’ opinions was harmless. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115(error is harmless where it is “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability
determination”).
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for assigning little weight
to the controverted opinions of Drs. Roy and Lucas as inconsistent with their own
treatment notes and with the medical evidence and as based on Jones’ subjective
complaints. See Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195; Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1149; Molina,
674 F.3d at 1111 (this court “must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported
by inferences reasonably drawn from the record”). The ALJ further provided
3
specific and legitimate reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Roy’s opinion
because he did not have a long-term treating relationship with Jones, he was a
primary care physician rather than a specialist, and provided little to no explanation
for his opinion. See Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195; Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1149.
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for assigning little weight
to Dr. Verma’s controverted opinion as based on Jones’ subjective reports, as not
supported by the evidence, and for not citing what supported his conclusions. See
Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111 (this court “must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are
supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record”); Batson, 359 F.3d at
1195; Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1149.
The ALJ provided germane reasons for assigning little weight to physician
assistant John Primak’s controverted opinion as inconsistent with his treatment
records, based on Jones’ subjective complaints, and highly conclusory in a number
of places. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111 (an ALJ may discount the opinion of an
“other source” if the ALJ provides germane reasons for doing so).
AFFIRMED.
4