Gregory Walker v. Nancy Berryhill

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY E. WALKER, No. 16-16715
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:14-cv-00480-JCM-PAL
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting MEMORANDUM*
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and RICE,*** Chief District
Judge.
*
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 Thomas O. Rice, Chief United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Gregory E. Walker appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social
Security Administration’s denial of his application for disability benefits. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s order de
novo and may reverse the agency’s denial of benefits only if the ALJ’s decision is
not supported by substantial evidence or contains legal error. Garrison v. Colvin,
759 F.3d 995, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
Walker argues the ALJ erred in failing to explain why the Residual
Functional Capacity (RFC) departed from the “accepted” or “adopted” finding that
Walker was limited to one- and two-step tasks, as opined by the reviewing
provider Sally Skewis, Ph.D. Notably, Walker does not challenge the weight given
to any medical opinion or the ALJ’s finding that Walker was not entirely credible.
A review of the ALJ’s decision demonstrates the ALJ did not accept or
adopt the limitation to one- and two-step tasks, although the ALJ adopted a
separate portion of Dr. Skewis’s opinion. As such, Walker’s argument is based on
a false premise and thus fails. Walker does not otherwise argue the RFC
determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, Walker
has waived any additional argument that the RFC was not supported by substantial
evidence. Maldonado v. Morales, 556 F.3d 1037, 1048 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“Arguments made in passing and inadequately briefed are waived.”).
2 16-16715
Moreover, the ALJ found Walker was not eligible for benefits because
Walker was non-compliant with his treatment regimen without providing a good
reason. This is an independent basis for denying Walker’s application. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1530(b). Walker never challenged this finding and thus waives the
argument. Maldonado, 556 F.3d at 1048 n.4. As a result, any purported error in
Walker’s assigned RFC would be harmless.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16715