Joel De La Cerda v. Carolyn Colvin

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 08 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL DE LA CERDA, No. 14-55414
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-03512-JEM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John E. McDermott, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 6, 2015***
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D. W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Joel De La Cerda appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 212),
and we affirm.
The agency did not err in failing to incorporate additional medical records
into the administrative record, because the records, dated after De La Cerda’s last
date insured, were not material. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b) (Appeals Council
shall consider “new and material evidence”); Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012) (new and material evidence must be
treated as part of the administrative record).
The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Capen’s
opinion that De La Cerda was disabled, including that Dr. Capen’s opinion did not
cover the period prior to De La Cerda’s date last insured, and was inconsistent with
his earlier opinion that De La Cerda could perform desk or supervisory work. See
Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014); Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 603 (9th Cir. 1999).
The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for finding De La Cerda not
fully credible, and for rejecting De La Cerda’s statements regarding his symptoms
prior to his date last insured when the ALJ found that De La Cerda’s statements
were unsupported in the medical record, and that De La Cerda’s testimony
2 14-55414
concerning his alcohol use was inconsistent with the medical record. See Garrison
v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2014); Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1163.
The ALJ did not err in formulating De La Cerda’s residual functional
capacity assessment, because the assessment was consistent with the restrictions
identified by the testifying doctor. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169,
1174 (9th Cir. 2008).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying De La Cerda’s
motion to alter or amend judgment because De La Cerda failed to establish any
basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-55414