Arnold Adkins v. Carolyn Colvin

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 04 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARNOLD DEAN ADKINS, No. 14-55715
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00138-JAH-
JMA
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner MEMORANDUM*
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 30, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Arnold Dean Adkins appeals pro se the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial in part of his application for
supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) found that despite Adkins’s severe impairments of right shoulder
problems and depression, he was not disabled prior to November 1, 2010, because
there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he
could have performed. The ALJ found that such jobs ceased to exist on November
1, 2010, when Adkins’s age category changed to that of an individual of advanced
age, and he then became disabled. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm the district court’s judgment.
Adkins contends that he became disabled, and entitled to SSI, on July 28,
2008, the date he filed his application for benefits, rather than on November 1,
2010, but he does not explain why the ALJ’s decision is not supported by
substantial evidence.
The ALJ did not err in his findings. He provided a specific and legitimate
reason, supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting in part a treating doctor’s
opinion regarding Adkins’s shoulder condition. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d
1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ’s findings regarding the various psychiatric
opinions were favorable to Adkins. The ALJ engaged in the required two-step
analysis of Adkins’s credibility and provided specific, clear and convincing
2
reasons for finding that he was not entirely credible. See id. at 1163; Treichler v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2014). In addition,
the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in finding that Adkins reached advanced age
on November 1, 2010, even though he did not turn 55 until approximately six
months later. See Lockwood v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1069
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “[w]here a claimant is within a few days or a few
months of reaching an older age category (a ‘borderline situation’), an ALJ has
discretion, but is not required, to use the older age category”) (quoting 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1563(b)).
The ALJ was not required to consider Adkins’s prior award of Social
Security benefits, which did not establish his continuing disability. See Stubbs-
Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that there is
no presumption of continuing disability once benefits have been terminated for
multiple years, even for a non-medical reason.).
AFFIRMED.
3