Reese Hughes v. Michael Astrue

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REESE P. HUGHES, No. 09-35032
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00077-JPH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
James P. Hutton, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2009 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: BEEZER, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reese Hughes appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision to deny his application for
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and XVI of the Social Security Act. Because the parties are familiar with the facts
and procedural history of this case, we will discuss them only as necessary to
explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
We may set aside the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision only
when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or is premised on legal
error. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). The ALJ
found that, without Hughes’s drug and alcohol abuse, Hughes retained the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a modified range of light work. At step
five, the ALJ determined that, while Hughes could not perform his past relevant
work, he could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national
economy. Hughes argues that (1) the ALJ impermissibly rejected opinion
testimony, (2) the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert failed to consider the
totality of Hughes’s limitations, and (3) substantial evidence does not support the
ALJ’s determination.
First, after finding Hughes not entirely credible, the ALJ properly rejected
opinion testimony based on Hughes’s own self-reports. Hughes did not challenge
the ALJ’s credibility finding in the district court, and therefore any challenge to
that finding is waived on appeal. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th
2
Cir. 2001). The ALJ also resolved inconsistencies between conflicting medical
evidence within the record, and gave clear and legitimate reasons for discounting
or rejecting controverted opinions. The ALJ is responsible for resolving
conflicting or ambiguous testimony, Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 956–57
(9th Cir. 2002), and here she fully summarized all medical evidence presented and
gave specific reasons for rejecting portions provided by some of Hughes’s treating
and examining physicians, see Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.
2008).
Second, the ALJ presented a proper hypothetical to the vocational expert
based on her assessment of Hughes’s functional limitations. Though Hughes
argues for a different reading of the record, we find that the ALJ’s interpretation of
the evidence was rational and should be upheld. Id. at 1038 (“The court will
uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when the evidence is susceptible to more than one
rational interpretation.”). The hypothetical posed to the vocational expert included
all limitations in the RFC determination.
Finally, the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Reports
by Dr. Bailey, Dr. Underwood, and Ms. Sjostrom indicated that Hughes suffered
from depression, anxiety, and personality disorders, as well as substance abuse.
Though these evaluations state that, without substance abuse, Hughes would
3
exhibit only mild limitations, the ALJ found that his psychological impairments
would continue to be severe. While Dr. Platter’s physical RFC assessment finds
Hughes able to perform medium work, after considering Hughes’s obesity and
diabetes, the ALJ found him able to perform only light work. Both of these
findings are more favorable to Hughes than that of the reporting physicians. Based
on Hughes’s RFC, education, work history, and age, along with the assistance of
the vocational expert, the ALJ did not err in finding that Hughes could perform
work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
AFFIRMED.
4