Burke v. Bisignano

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: 24-5863
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 30 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIZABETH S. BURKE, No. 24-5863 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-06190-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

Argued and Submitted December 4, 2025 Portland, Oregon

Before: McKEOWN and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District Judge.** Elizabeth Shannon Burke (“Burke”) seeks review of the Commissioner of

Social Security’s denial of her applications for Supplemental Security Income and

Disability Insurance benefits. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. not recite them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo the district court’s order upholding the denial of benefits. Farlow v.

Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 485, 487 (9th Cir. 2022). We must affirm the ALJ’s factual

findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We

review the ALJ’s assessment of a claimant’s symptom testimony to determine

whether it is supported by “specific, clear and convincing reasons.” Garrison v.

Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014–15 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assessment of the medical opinions

of Joel Felipe, M.D., a treating physician, and Terilee Wingate, Ph.D., an examining

psychologist. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. The ALJ reasonably gave little

weight to parts of Dr. Felipe’s opinions because they were contradicted by lab

results, Burke’s own testimony, and the findings of examining physician Syed Islam,

M.D. Likewise, the ALJ reasonably gave little weight to Dr. Wingate’s 2019 and

2020 opinions because they were contradicted by her contemporaneous

observations, her 2017 opinion, and other medical evidence. Because the ALJ’s

interpretation of these opinions was reasonable, we must defer to it. Batson v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s assessment of the remaining

medical evidence that Burke challenges on appeal. The ALJ reasonably gave great

weight to the non-examining state agency consultants’ findings because he found

2 24-5863 them consistent with independent clinical findings in the record. Thomas v.

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). The fact that the consultants did not

review any evidence beyond May 2016 does not undermine the ALJ’s assessment

because the ALJ found their opinions supportable and consistent with the record as

a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). Burke’s contention that the

findings of Elizabeth Koenig, M.D., are consistent with Dr. Wingate’s opinions lacks

the requisite specificity to establish error. Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,

350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not

actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”). Similarly, although Burke

summarizes the findings of her other treatment providers, she does not identify

specific errors in the ALJ’s assessment of those findings. We decline the invitation

to “manufacture arguments” where none has been made. Id. (citation omitted).

The ALJ’s conclusion that Burke’s limitations were not as extensive as she

had alleged was “specific, clear and convincing.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014–15.

To be sure, an ALJ may not discount a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony by

relying solely on the absence of corroborating objective medical evidence. Ferguson

v. O’Malley, 95 F.4th 1194, 1200 (9th Cir. 2024). In this case, the ALJ considered

not only the absence of corroborating objective medical evidence, but also the

presence of inconsistent objective medical evidence. Id. The ALJ “specifically

identif[ied]” Burke’s testimony about the severity of her lupus, spinal disorder,

3 24-5863 obesity, joint pain, and mental health impairments, and explained that test results

and treating records demonstrated improvements in her conditions and

“undermine[d] the testimony.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th

Cir. 2001).

Because the ALJ’s analysis of the medical evidence and Burke’s testimony

was not flawed, we conclude that the ALJ properly assessed Burke’s residual

functional capacity (“RFC”). Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175–76

(9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting claimant’s challenge to step-five RFC determination and

because it merely “restate[d] her argument that the ALJ’s RFC finding did not

account for all her limitations”).

AFFIRMED.

4 24-5863