Cindy Miner v. Carolyn Colvin

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CINDY MARIE MINER, No. 13-15790
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00382-DAD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 12, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Cindy Marie Miner appeals from the district court’s order affirming the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The ALJ gave “specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting [Miner’s]
testimony regarding the severity of [her] symptoms,” see Treichler v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted), and these reasons were supported by substantial evidence. In making an
adverse credibility determination, the ALJ properly relied on: (1) the lack of
objective medical evidence supporting Miner’s alleged level of pain, see Burch v.
Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680–81 (9th Cir. 2005); (2) examining physician Dr.
Vesali’s conclusions that the physical examination of Miner did not support her
subjective complaints of neck pain, back pain, and knee pain, and that Miner did
not have significant functional limitations; and (3) the inconsistency between
Miner’s allegations that her impairments were disabling and her conservative
treatment and her testimony regarding daily activities, see Molina v. Astrue, 674
F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir.
2007); Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). The record reflects
that despite Miner’s allegations that she suffered disabling pain for years, Miner’s
doctors did not recommend surgeries or other aggressive treatments. Nor did
Miner pursue aggressive treatment; for instance, when surgery was discussed as
one of several treatment options for allegedly disabling incontinence, Miner chose
exercises.
2
The ALJ provided an adequate rationale for her residual functional capacity
(RFC) assessment, which is also supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ
adequately described and discussed the medical evidence in the record. No
treating physician opinion was in the record, so the ALJ appropriately relied on the
findings and opinion of the sole examining physician. See SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL
374184, at *1 (July 2, 1996); see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th
Cir. 1996) (“[T]he Commissioner must provide ‘clear and convincing’ reasons for
rejecting the uncontradicted opinion of an examining physician.”). The ALJ was
not required to discuss Miner’s chest pain or allegedly disabling urinary
incontinence, as “[p]reparing a function-by-function analysis for medical
conditions or impairments that the ALJ found neither credible nor supported by the
record is unnecessary.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).
The ALJ’s reasoning is sufficient to permit appellate review, so any error in failing
to discuss specific items in the record is harmless. Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1099.
AFFIRMED.
3