Marcia Sienko v. Nancy Berryhill

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 06 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCIA A. SIENKO, No. 16-35121
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-00082-JTJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
John T. Johnston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Marcia A. Sienko appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II 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).
XVI of the Social Security Act. At step four of the sequential evaluation process,
the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Sienko could perform her past
relevant work. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The ALJ did not err in assigning little weight to the contradicted opinion of
treating physician Dr. Scott Burk regarding the intensity and limiting effect of
Sienko’s impairments. The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons,
supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting Dr. Burk’s opinion. The ALJ
stated that Dr. Burk’s opinion was inconsistent with the medical evidence and
relied heavily upon Sienko’s non-credible subjective reports regarding the severity
of her impairments. See Valentine v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec Admin., 574 F.3d
685, 692 (9th Cir. 2009). The credibility determination is not challenged on
appeal, and is, therefore, waived. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2
(9th Cir. 2009).
The ALJ provided germane reasons for only giving some weight to the
opinion of lay witness Brian Ragland by stating that Ragland’s opinion was
inconsistent with the medical evidence. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114 (explaining
that the ALJ must give reasons that are germane to each witness to discount
competent lay witness testimony).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35121