NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK A. APPLE, No. 24-307 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-05531-MLP v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 2, 2025** Portland, Oregon
Before: BYBEE, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Patrick A. Apple appeals from a district court order affirming the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of his application for disability insurance
benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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). We review the district court’s order upholding the ALJ’s denial of social
security benefits de novo. Larson v. Saul, 967 F.3d 914, 922 (9th Cir. 2020). We
reverse the ALJ’s decision only if it “was not supported by substantial evidence in
the record as a whole or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard.” Ahearn v.
Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
“If the evidence ‘is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the
ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.’” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th
Cir. 2020) (quoting Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005)).
1. The ALJ did not err by discounting the medical opinions of two examining
psychologists, nor the medical opinion of an examining advanced registered nurse
practitioner (ARNP). Because Apple’s claim was filed after March 27, 2017, the
ALJ was required to articulate the persuasiveness of each medical opinion and
specifically address whether the opinion is supported and consistent with the record.
Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520c(a)–(c)).1 “Supportability means the extent to which a medical source
supports the medical opinion by explaining the relevant objective medical evidence.
Consistency means the extent to which a medical opinion is consistent with the
1 Apple waived his argument that Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), undermines the validity of the 2017 regulations by raising the contention only in his reply brief. See Barnes v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 865 F.3d 1266, 1271 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017).
2 24-307 evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim.” Id.
(internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted).
The ALJ concluded that the opinions of an examining psychologist from May
2021 were “not persuasive because they are inconsistent with and unsupported by
the medical evidence which shows generally normal mental status examinations and
some improvement in symptoms with medication.” Although Apple argues to the
contrary, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical records
and Apple’s improved symptoms.
The ALJ also found the opinions of another examining psychologist from
September 2022 only “somewhat persuasive,” stating: “While his mild to moderate
opined limitations are consistent with and supported by the medical evidence, [the]
opined marked limitations are inconsistent and unsupported by the treatment records
and his own examination which show normal mental status examinations despite
having a depressed affect at times.” Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
decision to discount the assessment of mental health limitations that were more
severe than supported by the medical evidence in the record as a whole.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that an examining
ARNP’s assessment of substantial physical limitations were partially contradicted
by other medical evidence in the record.
2. The ALJ did not err by discounting Apple’s testimony regarding the
3 24-307 severity of his physical and mental symptoms and limitations. Where there is
objective medical evidence of an impairment that could cause the symptoms the
claimant alleges, an ALJ can discount the claimant’s testimony about the severity of
his or her symptoms only by offering “specific, clear and convincing reasons for
doing so.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014–15 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal
citation and quotation omitted). Furthermore, the ALJ’s “specific, clear and
convincing reasons” must be supported by “substantial evidence.” Treichler v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the
ALJ cited at least two clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial
evidence for discounting Apple’s testimony.
First, the ALJ discounted Apple’s testimony because he found it was not
consistent with the objective medical evidence. “When objective medical evidence
in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may
indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489,
498 (9th Cir. 2022).
As to Apple’s physical symptoms, Apple testified that he could sit, stand, and
walk only for short periods. As the ALJ noted, though, Apple’s medical records
showed largely normal strength, sensation, reflexes, and gait beginning in March
2021 and continuing throughout 2022. During a consultative examination in
October 2021, Apple was able to walk into the examination room with “normal
4 24-307 ambulatory mannerisms,” transfer to and from the examination table, and transfer to
and from a chair, all without assistance. Additionally, in September 2021, Apple
declined epidural steroid injections.
As to Apple’s mental symptoms, Apple testified that he had “bad” anxiety,
lost interest in everything, and generally felt “drowsy” and “dizzy” due to his
medications. He also stated that he experiences difficulties with memory and
concentration. The ALJ concluded that, although Apple had mental impairments,
his psychological evaluations failed to support Apple’s allegations “that his
impairments are debilitating.” The ALJ then cited numerous mental status
examinations in the longitude record that showed normal thoughts, concentration,
memory, judgment, and insight, and often appropriate mood and affect with
sometimes depressed mood. The ALJ clearly and convincingly described how this
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK A. APPLE, No. 24-307 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-05531-MLP v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 2, 2025** Portland, Oregon
Before: BYBEE, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Patrick A. Apple appeals from a district court order affirming the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of his application for disability insurance
benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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). We review the district court’s order upholding the ALJ’s denial of social
security benefits de novo. Larson v. Saul, 967 F.3d 914, 922 (9th Cir. 2020). We
reverse the ALJ’s decision only if it “was not supported by substantial evidence in
the record as a whole or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard.” Ahearn v.
Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
“If the evidence ‘is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the
ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.’” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th
Cir. 2020) (quoting Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005)).
1. The ALJ did not err by discounting the medical opinions of two examining
psychologists, nor the medical opinion of an examining advanced registered nurse
practitioner (ARNP). Because Apple’s claim was filed after March 27, 2017, the
ALJ was required to articulate the persuasiveness of each medical opinion and
specifically address whether the opinion is supported and consistent with the record.
Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520c(a)–(c)).1 “Supportability means the extent to which a medical source
supports the medical opinion by explaining the relevant objective medical evidence.
Consistency means the extent to which a medical opinion is consistent with the
1 Apple waived his argument that Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), undermines the validity of the 2017 regulations by raising the contention only in his reply brief. See Barnes v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 865 F.3d 1266, 1271 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017).
2 24-307 evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim.” Id.
(internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted).
The ALJ concluded that the opinions of an examining psychologist from May
2021 were “not persuasive because they are inconsistent with and unsupported by
the medical evidence which shows generally normal mental status examinations and
some improvement in symptoms with medication.” Although Apple argues to the
contrary, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical records
and Apple’s improved symptoms.
The ALJ also found the opinions of another examining psychologist from
September 2022 only “somewhat persuasive,” stating: “While his mild to moderate
opined limitations are consistent with and supported by the medical evidence, [the]
opined marked limitations are inconsistent and unsupported by the treatment records
and his own examination which show normal mental status examinations despite
having a depressed affect at times.” Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
decision to discount the assessment of mental health limitations that were more
severe than supported by the medical evidence in the record as a whole.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that an examining
ARNP’s assessment of substantial physical limitations were partially contradicted
by other medical evidence in the record.
2. The ALJ did not err by discounting Apple’s testimony regarding the
3 24-307 severity of his physical and mental symptoms and limitations. Where there is
objective medical evidence of an impairment that could cause the symptoms the
claimant alleges, an ALJ can discount the claimant’s testimony about the severity of
his or her symptoms only by offering “specific, clear and convincing reasons for
doing so.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014–15 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal
citation and quotation omitted). Furthermore, the ALJ’s “specific, clear and
convincing reasons” must be supported by “substantial evidence.” Treichler v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the
ALJ cited at least two clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial
evidence for discounting Apple’s testimony.
First, the ALJ discounted Apple’s testimony because he found it was not
consistent with the objective medical evidence. “When objective medical evidence
in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may
indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489,
498 (9th Cir. 2022).
As to Apple’s physical symptoms, Apple testified that he could sit, stand, and
walk only for short periods. As the ALJ noted, though, Apple’s medical records
showed largely normal strength, sensation, reflexes, and gait beginning in March
2021 and continuing throughout 2022. During a consultative examination in
October 2021, Apple was able to walk into the examination room with “normal
4 24-307 ambulatory mannerisms,” transfer to and from the examination table, and transfer to
and from a chair, all without assistance. Additionally, in September 2021, Apple
declined epidural steroid injections.
As to Apple’s mental symptoms, Apple testified that he had “bad” anxiety,
lost interest in everything, and generally felt “drowsy” and “dizzy” due to his
medications. He also stated that he experiences difficulties with memory and
concentration. The ALJ concluded that, although Apple had mental impairments,
his psychological evaluations failed to support Apple’s allegations “that his
impairments are debilitating.” The ALJ then cited numerous mental status
examinations in the longitude record that showed normal thoughts, concentration,
memory, judgment, and insight, and often appropriate mood and affect with
sometimes depressed mood. The ALJ clearly and convincingly described how this
substantial objective evidence undercut Apple’s subjective testimony.
Second, the ALJ discounted Apple’s testimony because he found that Apple’s
physical and mental symptoms had improved with treatment. “[E]vidence of
medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of
disability.” Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017).
As to Apple’s physical symptoms, the ALJ noted that “[t]he treatment records
show[ed] improving coordination and lower extremity weakness after his November
2020 hospitalization.” Apple had a seizure in late 2020 after he stopped drinking
5 24-307 alcohol, and his recovery required him to use a walker for approximately four
months. But by March 2021, he walked with a “normal gait” and did not need to
use a walker any longer. A January 2021 report noted his right leg weakness was
“improving overall” with “occasional” pains, and a March 2021 report noted his
strength “continues to improve” under a heading titled “[b]ack pain.”
As to Apple’s mental health symptoms, Apple’s medical records note that
Apple’s anxiety was “overall well controlled” in March 2021; that he was “feeling
better overall emotionally” in July 2021; that his sleep was better in September 2021;
that his anxiety had decreased when he decreased his caffeine intake in March 2022;
and that Prazosin helped his nightmares in April 2022. A medical record from
September 2022 also states Apple showed “normal” memory, concentration, and
speech. The ALJ clearly and convincingly described how this substantial evidence
showed that improvement in Apple’s mental and physical health further undercut his
subjective testimony.
3. The ALJ did not err by discounting the lay testimony of Apple’s son and
girlfriend. “It is unsettled whether an ALJ is still required to consider lay witness
evidence under the revised regulations.” Crummett v. King, No. 23-3668, 2025 WL
470890, at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025) (unpublished) (citation omitted). But
assuming that an ALJ must consider such evidence, “[a]n ALJ need only give
germane reasons for discrediting the testimony of lay witnesses.” Bayliss v.
6 24-307 Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here, because the
ALJ “provided clear and convincing reasons for rejecting [Apple’s] own subjective
complaints, and because [the lay witness] testimony was similar to such complaints,
it follows that the ALJ also gave germane reasons for rejecting [the lay witness]
testimony.” Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir.
2009).
AFFIRMED.
7 24-307