Michaela Kellner v. Carolyn Colvin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 12 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAELA WHITNEY KELLNER, No. 13-56357
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:12-cv-01457-JPR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jean Rosenbluth, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 2, 2014**
Before: GOULD, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Michaela Whitney Kellner appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disabled adult
child’s benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act. Kellner contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
*
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).
erred in finding that she could perform existing work and was thus not disabled.
She specifically contends that the ALJ erred in rejecting her testimony regarding
the extent of her pain and dysfunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court’s order de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d
1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not
supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id. Where evidence is
susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we “must uphold the ALJ’s
findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.”
Id. at 1111.
Kellner’s contentions that the ALJ erred in discounting her credibility lack
merit. The ALJ offered specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting some
of Kellner’s statements by specifically citing to her claims that were inconsistent
with the medical evidence, including treating physicians’ evidence that Kellner
walked with a normal, unassisted gait and had intact sensation in her left foot.
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007); Carmickle v. Comm’r
Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ also properly
discounted Kellner’s credibility by citing to her mother’s statements, because the
objective records did not support Kellner’s claim that she required a cane for
2
ambulation. Verduzco v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 1999). Finally, the
ALJ’s finding that Kellner did not make “even a good faith effort to find gainful
employment” is also a clear and convincing reason to discount her credibility.
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002).
Kellner waived any argument that the ALJ erred in giving little weight to the
opinions of her treating physicians, and in giving more weight to the testifying
medical expert’s opinions. Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161 n.2.
AFFIRMED.
3