Marquardt-Stoneking v. Bisignano

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-3033
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTHER ELIZABETH MARQUARDT- No. 24-3033 STONEKING, D.C. No. 6:23-cv-00213-HL Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Andrew D. Hallman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 11, 2025 Portland, Oregon

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Claimant Esther Elizabeth Marquardt-Stoneking appeals from the district

court’s order affirming the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of

supplemental security income (SSI) for a period starting September 10, 2019. The

ALJ denied her application at step five. He determined that Claimant had residual

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. functional capacity (RFC) to complete medium work with some limitations,

including breaks every two hours so that she could take migraine medication.

In this appeal, Claimant’s principal argument relates to her migraines, which

she suffered twice weekly. She contends that the ALJ failed to adequately account

for her testimony regarding limitations she experienced while awaiting her

medication to take effect. The ALJ acknowledged the delayed effect of the

medication but reasonably determined that the medication was ultimately effective

in treating her migraines, such that they were not disabling. See Warre v. Comm’r

of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that

“[i]mpairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling

for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits”); see also Smartt v.

Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499–500 (9th Cir. 2022). The ALJ’s decision is supported

by substantial evidence and free of legal error.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-3033