Herman Meier v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 28 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERMAN F. MEIER, No. 22-35386
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00758-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 16, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District
Judge.
Herman Meier appeals the district court’s order affirming an Administrative
*
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).
***
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision denying his claim for supplemental security income.
Meier argues the ALJ erred by rejecting his subjective symptom testimony and by
rejecting his neighbor’s lay witness testimony. Meier also argues the ALJ’s finding
that his medically determinable impairments were not severe is unsupported by
substantial evidence. We review de novo the district court’s ruling and may set aside
the ALJ’s denial of benefits only for legal error or lack of substantial evidence.
Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
1. Contrary to Meier’s argument on appeal, the ALJ did not fully reject his
subjective symptom testimony. Rather, the ALJ noted specific discrepancies in
Meier’s testimony that undercut his other “statements concerning the intensity,
persistence and limiting effects of [his] symptoms.” The ALJ was required to
“evaluate whether the [symptom] statements [were] consistent with objective
medical evidence and the other evidence,” SSR 16-3p, 81 Fed. Reg. 14166, 14169
(Mar. 16, 2016); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (2016), and ultimately concluded
that Meier’s symptom statements were “not entirely consistent with the medical
evidence and other evidence in the record”—including Meier’s own testimony
before the ALJ. By citing the discrepancies in Meier’s testimony and objective
medical evidence throughout his analysis, the ALJ provided “specific, clear, and
convincing reasons” to support the finding that Meier’s claim of severe impairment
was not consistent with the record as a whole. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995,
2
1010 (9th Cir. 2014).
2. The ALJ provided germane reasons for assigning “little weight” to the
opinions expressed by Meier’s neighbor. Similar to the handling of Meier’s
statements, the ALJ explained that the neighbor’s opinions were inconsistent with
both the objective medical evidence in the record and the conclusions of state agency
medical consultants. “In light of our conclusion that the ALJ provided clear and
convincing reasons for [discounting Meier’s] own subjective complaints, and
because [his neighbor’s] testimony was similar to such complaints, it follows that
the ALJ also gave germane reasons for rejecting her testimony.” Valentine v.
Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009).
3. The ALJ’s conclusion that Meier did not suffer from a severe impairment
or a severe combination of impairments over a 12-month period is supported by
substantial evidence. The ALJ noted that Meier suffers from a degenerative disc
disease of the lumbar spine and arthritis in his right foot but found these impairments
were not severe, citing medical records indicating Meier exhibited normal strength,
gait, posture, and mobility over the relevant period. This finding is consistent with
Meier’s testimony that he experiences acute instances of severe back pain but treats
the pain with Tylenol and is not seeking specialized treatment for his back.
Meier was briefly hospitalized due to diabetic ketoacidosis, but the ALJ
referenced medical records indicating that the hospitalization was a result of Meier’s
3
failure to take his medicine and that his diabetes is largely controlled by such
medication. Although Meier experienced a severe, but short, “flare” in his psoriasis
around March 2018, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that this
condition was also generally controlled by treatment. Although Meier uses an
inhaler and was briefly hospitalized for respiratory failure, the ALJ reasonably
observed that Meier denied any respiratory symptoms a couple of months later.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Meier’s remaining
impairments—which are largely unaddressed on appeal—did not contribute to the
severity of his symptoms. The ALJ’s conclusions are also unanimously supported
by the opinions of four separate state agency medical and psychological consultants.
On this record, the ALJ’s determination that Meier did not suffer from a severe
impairment or a severe combination of impairments is supported by substantial
evidence.
AFFIRMED.
4