Jeff Arthurs v. Carolyn Colvin , 644 F. App'x 749 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 09 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFF ARTHURS, No. 14-35611
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00817-MA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 7, 2016**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Jeff Arthurs appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner
of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under
Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we
affirm.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in according “only limited
weight” to the contradicted opinion of Arthurs’s treating physician. The ALJ
provided a specific and legitimate reason, supported by substantial evidence, by
explaining that the physician’s conclusions—that Arthurs would need to miss two
or more days of work per month and could not stand for long periods, bend, or
reach—were inconsistent with Arthurs’s testimony that soon after the physician
issued her opinion, he worked for seven months in a job that required long days of
standing and bending over, loading and unloading machines. See Ghanim v.
Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014); Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec.
Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2009).
Any error in the ALJ’s use of qualitative terms such as “slight” and
“moderate” in the residual functional capacity finding was harmless because the
the ALJ provided the vocational expert with a more specific explanation of
Arthurs’s limitations prior to the vocational expert’s testimony about Arthurs’s
ability to perform his past relevant work. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115. Any error
was also “‘inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.’” Id.
2
(quoting Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008)).
AFFIRMED.
3