Dimitria Candelaria v. Carolyn Colvin

Ninth Circuit

Dimitria Candelaria v. Carolyn Colvin

622 F. App'x 678

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2015

Docket13-35961

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 622 F. App'x 678 (Dimitria Candelaria v. Carolyn Colvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dimitria Candelaria v. Carolyn Colvin, 622 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

1.The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Candelaria wasn’t credible because (1) her physical therapist reported that she may have exaggerated her pain levels, (2) she participated in a wrestling competition during her alleged period of disability and (3) she attended only half of her scheduled physical-therapy appointments. These specific and convincing reasons for discounting Candelaria’s testimony amply justify the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.2001); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603-05 (9th Cir.1989).

2. Although the ALJ didn’t discuss every detail in the medical record, he did discuss all of the significant and probative evidence that bore on Candelaria’s ability to work. Nothing more was required. Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir.1984) (per cu-riam). The ALJ’s decision to give “little weight” to an evaluation submitted by Candelaria’s physical therapist was justified by the fact that the physical therapist concluded that Candelaria may have been exaggerating her pain levels.

3. The ALJ did not err by declining to fully credit a lay-witness report submitted by Posada, Candelaria’s daughter and caretaker. The ALJ could reasonably distrust Posada’s report because it was inconsistent with the medical evidence. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2005). Moreover, any error in failing to credit Posada was harmless because her report largely recounted complaints from Candelaria, whom the ALJ had already found to be not credible. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir.2009).

* * *

Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Candelaria is not disabled, the decision below is AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

1.The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Candelaria wasn’t credible because (1) her physical therapist reported that she may have exaggerated her pain levels, (2) she participated in a wrestling competition during her alleged period of disability and (3) she attended only half of her scheduled physical-therapy appointments. These specific and convincing reasons for discounting Candelaria’s testimony amply justify the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.2001); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603-05 (9th Cir.1989).

2. Although the ALJ didn’t discuss every detail in the medical record, he did discuss all of the significant and probative evidence that bore on Candelaria’s ability to work. Nothing more was required. Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir.1984) (per cu-riam). The ALJ’s decision to give “little weight” to an evaluation submitted by Candelaria’s physical therapist was justified by the fact that the physical therapist concluded that Candelaria may have been exaggerating her pain levels.

3. The ALJ did not err by declining to fully credit a lay-witness report submitted by Posada, Candelaria’s daughter and caretaker. The ALJ could reasonably distrust Posada’s report because it was inconsistent with the medical evidence. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2005). Moreover, any error in failing to credit Posada was harmless because her report largely recounted complaints from Candelaria, whom the ALJ had already found to be not credible. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir.2009).

* * *

Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Candelaria is not disabled, the decision below is AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 F. App'x 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimitria-candelaria-v-carolyn-colvin-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack