Gloria Ulbricht v. Kilolo Kijakazi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLORIA J. ULBRICHT, No. 20-35716
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:18-cv-01170-CL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Mark D. Clarke, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, PARKER,*** and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Gloria Ulbricht appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security
Administration’s denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
*
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).
***
The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge
for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) gave “specific, clear and
convincing” reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Ulbricht’s
testimony. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009)), superseded by regulation on
other grounds. First, the ALJ noted that Ulbricht’s reported onset date and
complaints of vision impairment and severe headaches were not supported by the
objective medical evidence in the record. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681
(9th Cir. 2005). Second, the ALJ detailed inconsistences between Ulbricht’s
testimony at the 2017 hearing, her prior testimony and documents in the record. See
Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). For example, Ulbricht’s
testimony during the 2017 hearing that her headaches rendered her bedridden was
inconsistent with her 2016 testimony, which failed to mention this level of severity.
Ulbricht’s testimony during the 2017 hearing that medication only afforded her one
hour of relief from her headaches was also inconsistent with the medical record.
Third, the ALJ correctly noted that the conservative treatment offered by Ulbricht’s
doctors undermined her testimony about the severity of her impairments. See Parra
v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007). Fourth, the record shows that Ulbricht
participated in a variety of daily activities inconsistent with her complaints. Orn v.
Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007).
2
2. The ALJ erred in several findings. For example, she provided no support
for the assertion that Ulbricht’s hepatitis was present at the same level of severity
prior to the alleged onset date and mistakenly found that Ulbricht did not report
headaches prior to 2015. There also appears to be no support in the record for the
ALJ’s statement that Ulbricht initially admitted to not working for non-medical
reasons or for the ALJ’s conclusion that Ulbricht’s postponement in seeking some
treatment suggested her symptoms were not serious. But, because the ALJ provided
clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for
discounting Ulbricht’s testimony about her symptoms and limitations, these errors
were harmless. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115.
AFFIRMED.
3