Robert Jamtaas v. Carolyn W. Colvin

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT JAMTAAS, No. 13-35490
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05157-BHS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2015
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Robert Jamtaas (Jamtaas) appeals the district court’s order affirming the
denial of his application for supplemental security income under the Social
Security Act. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) provided specific and legitimate
reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for weighing the opinions of the
various medical providers. See Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir.
2012). Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr.
Wingate’s assessment of functional limitations that were based on her diagnosis of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). See Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686
(9th Cir. 2005). Jamtaas did not testify at his administrative hearing to symptoms
of PTSD, and no other doctor diagnosed him with PTSD. Thus, the ALJ’s duty to
develop the record was not triggered. See Garcia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 768 F.3d
925, 930-31 (9th Cir. 2014).
2. The ALJ also provided specific, clear and convincing reasons,
supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting Jamtaas’ testimony about the
severity of his symptoms. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th Cir.
2014). These reasons included Jamtaas’ own inconsistent statements, his daily
activities, and his prior work history. See Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 574
F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009).
2
3. The ALJ provided germane reasons for rejecting the statement of
Jamtaas’ father to the extent that it was inconsistent with the overall evidence. See
Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2014).
4. Because the ALJ did not err in his evaluation of the medical evidence,
Jamtaas’ testimony, and the lay witness evidence, he did not err in his residual
functional capacity determination, which was supported by substantial evidence.
See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).
5. The ALJ properly relied on the testimony from the vocational expert
because it was based on a hypothetical which contained the limitations that the
ALJ found were supported by the evidence. See Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1166.
AFFIRMED.
3