NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA MCCLUNE, No. 24-2911 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-05017-AJR v. MEMORANDUM* LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California A. Joel Richlin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 8, 2025** Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and BADE and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Martha McClune appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of McClune’s
application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits under the Social
* 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). Security Act (“SSA”), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. McClune applied for SSI benefits on
July 5, 2016. Among other things, McClune suffers from lumbar degenerative disc
disease, post hysterectomy pelvic pain, and adjustment disorder with mixed and
depressed mood.
On appeal, McClune argues, inter alia, that the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) erred by finding that McClune’s mental impairment of adjustment disorder
with mixed and depressed mood was “nonsevere” and did not cause more than a
minimal limitation in her ability to perform basic work activities. As a result,
McClune contends that the ALJ found that she had a residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) that is unsupported by the record. In addition, McClune contends that the
Commissioner updated the definition of “past relevant work” in June 2024, and the
new definition should be retroactively applied to her case because the amended
definition would establish her as disabled under the guidelines.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district
court’s order affirming an ALJ decision de novo and will reverse an ALJ’s denial of
benefits only if the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence or if the
ALJ applied the wrong legal standard. Stiffler v. O’Malley, 102 F.4th 1102, 1106
(9th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere
scintilla,” and means only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
2 24-2911 accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103
(2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We affirm.
1. The crux of McClune’s arguments on appeal is that the ALJ incorrectly
applied the psychiatric review technique (“PRT”), 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(c), when
determining that her mental impairment of adjustment disorder with mixed and
depressed mood was “nonsevere.” 1 The technique requires an ALJ to assess
McClune’s cognitive ability to: (1) understand, remember, or apply information; (2)
interact with others; (3) concentrate, persist, or maintain pace; and (4) adapt or
manage oneself. Id. § 416.920a(c)(3).
First, McClune contends that the ALJ cherry-picked the record when
assessing each phase of the PRT. While we recognize that the there is some evidence
to support McClune’s argument that her mental impairment was severe, the ALJ is
responsible for “resolving conflicts in medical testimony[] and for resolving
ambiguities.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). In that
regard, the ALJ did not err. The ALJ weighed all of the evidence and found that
1 McClune similarly argues that, even if the ALJ correctly found that her mental impairment was nonsevere, the ALJ still erred by not discussing or giving “reasoned consideration” to McClune’s mental state in the assessment of her RFC, citing to Hutton v. Astrue, 491 Fed. App’x 850, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). However, the record reflects that the ALJ expressly recognized McClune’s nonsevere mental impairments in making the RFC finding, and McClune does not meaningfully explain how the ALJ erred in considering her mental impairments. Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2022). Therefore, the ALJ did not err.
3 24-2911 McClune’s adjustment disorder did not cause more than a minimal limitation in her
ability to perform work activities because McClune’s treating records indicated that
she had “intact cognitive functioning,” had “some ability to interact with others,”
reported “intact activities of daily living,” and, since 2017, had not attempted suicide
or been hospitalized for symptoms related to depression or anxiety, despite not
currently receiving any psychiatric treatment. Because the ALJ’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence in the record, we must uphold the decision.
Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[I]f ‘the
evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the
ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the
record.’” (quoting Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012))).
2. McClune also argues that the ALJ erred in disregarding the medical opinion
of Dr. Barua when applying the PRT. However, the ALJ recognized, and the record
reflects, that Dr. Barua’s opinion was internally inconsistent because she expressly
stated there were “inadequate medical records” to allow her to form an opinion about
the nature and degree of McClune’s mental impairment, but she nevertheless
concluded that McCLune’s mental impairment was severe. Additionally, the ALJ
found Dr. Barua’s opinion unpersuasive because it was based primarily on a review
of scores from tests that included only McClune’s self-reported symptoms and did
not contain any objective evidence of functional limitations. See Ukolov v.
4 24-2911 Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a claimant’s self-
reported psychiatric symptoms are not a substitute for objective evidence of mental
limitations). Thus, the ALJ gave greater weight to conclusions about McClune’s
mental health found in her treatment records, which concluded that McClune was
“mentally stable,” “not suicidal,” and “not gravely disabled.” Accordingly,
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Dr. Barua’s opinion,
and McClune has not shown that the ALJ erred. Farlow v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 485,
488–89 (9th Cir. 2022).
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 APR 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA MCCLUNE, No. 24-2911 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-05017-AJR v. MEMORANDUM* LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California A. Joel Richlin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 8, 2025** Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and BADE and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Martha McClune appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of McClune’s
application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits under the Social
* 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). Security Act (“SSA”), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. McClune applied for SSI benefits on
July 5, 2016. Among other things, McClune suffers from lumbar degenerative disc
disease, post hysterectomy pelvic pain, and adjustment disorder with mixed and
depressed mood.
On appeal, McClune argues, inter alia, that the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) erred by finding that McClune’s mental impairment of adjustment disorder
with mixed and depressed mood was “nonsevere” and did not cause more than a
minimal limitation in her ability to perform basic work activities. As a result,
McClune contends that the ALJ found that she had a residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) that is unsupported by the record. In addition, McClune contends that the
Commissioner updated the definition of “past relevant work” in June 2024, and the
new definition should be retroactively applied to her case because the amended
definition would establish her as disabled under the guidelines.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district
court’s order affirming an ALJ decision de novo and will reverse an ALJ’s denial of
benefits only if the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence or if the
ALJ applied the wrong legal standard. Stiffler v. O’Malley, 102 F.4th 1102, 1106
(9th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere
scintilla,” and means only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
2 24-2911 accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103
(2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We affirm.
1. The crux of McClune’s arguments on appeal is that the ALJ incorrectly
applied the psychiatric review technique (“PRT”), 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(c), when
determining that her mental impairment of adjustment disorder with mixed and
depressed mood was “nonsevere.” 1 The technique requires an ALJ to assess
McClune’s cognitive ability to: (1) understand, remember, or apply information; (2)
interact with others; (3) concentrate, persist, or maintain pace; and (4) adapt or
manage oneself. Id. § 416.920a(c)(3).
First, McClune contends that the ALJ cherry-picked the record when
assessing each phase of the PRT. While we recognize that the there is some evidence
to support McClune’s argument that her mental impairment was severe, the ALJ is
responsible for “resolving conflicts in medical testimony[] and for resolving
ambiguities.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). In that
regard, the ALJ did not err. The ALJ weighed all of the evidence and found that
1 McClune similarly argues that, even if the ALJ correctly found that her mental impairment was nonsevere, the ALJ still erred by not discussing or giving “reasoned consideration” to McClune’s mental state in the assessment of her RFC, citing to Hutton v. Astrue, 491 Fed. App’x 850, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). However, the record reflects that the ALJ expressly recognized McClune’s nonsevere mental impairments in making the RFC finding, and McClune does not meaningfully explain how the ALJ erred in considering her mental impairments. Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2022). Therefore, the ALJ did not err.
3 24-2911 McClune’s adjustment disorder did not cause more than a minimal limitation in her
ability to perform work activities because McClune’s treating records indicated that
she had “intact cognitive functioning,” had “some ability to interact with others,”
reported “intact activities of daily living,” and, since 2017, had not attempted suicide
or been hospitalized for symptoms related to depression or anxiety, despite not
currently receiving any psychiatric treatment. Because the ALJ’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence in the record, we must uphold the decision.
Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[I]f ‘the
evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the
ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the
record.’” (quoting Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012))).
2. McClune also argues that the ALJ erred in disregarding the medical opinion
of Dr. Barua when applying the PRT. However, the ALJ recognized, and the record
reflects, that Dr. Barua’s opinion was internally inconsistent because she expressly
stated there were “inadequate medical records” to allow her to form an opinion about
the nature and degree of McClune’s mental impairment, but she nevertheless
concluded that McCLune’s mental impairment was severe. Additionally, the ALJ
found Dr. Barua’s opinion unpersuasive because it was based primarily on a review
of scores from tests that included only McClune’s self-reported symptoms and did
not contain any objective evidence of functional limitations. See Ukolov v.
4 24-2911 Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a claimant’s self-
reported psychiatric symptoms are not a substitute for objective evidence of mental
limitations). Thus, the ALJ gave greater weight to conclusions about McClune’s
mental health found in her treatment records, which concluded that McClune was
“mentally stable,” “not suicidal,” and “not gravely disabled.” Accordingly,
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Dr. Barua’s opinion,
and McClune has not shown that the ALJ erred. Farlow v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 485,
488–89 (9th Cir. 2022).
3. Finally, McClune requests that this court review the ALJ decision
consistent with the June 22, 2024, regulation amendment that changed the definition
of “past relevant work” from 15 years to 5 years. See 89 Fed. Reg. 27653 (Apr. 18,
2024) (final rule). McClune asserts that application of the new regulation would
compel a determination that she is disabled, refuting the ALJ’s determination that
she could perform her past work and other work in the national economy. Because
McClune’s application was filed in 2016, and the ALJ’s decision became the final
decision of the Commissioner in 2023, and because the Commissioner has issued a
Social Security Ruling explaining that the new definition is intended to be applied
prospectively in ALJ decisions issued on or after June 22, 2024, SSR 24-2p, 89 Fed.
Reg. 48479 n.1 (June 6, 2024), we decline to apply the new regulation in this appeal.
See Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 656 n.2 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that it is
5 24-2911 circuit practice to “defer to Social Security Rulings unless they are plainly erroneous
or inconsistent with the [Social Security] Act or regulations” (citation omitted)); see
also Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003)
(reviewing the ALJ’s decision on appeal under the regulations that were in effect at
the time of the final decision, not under the regulations that were published after the
decision but before the appeal).
AFFIRMED.
6 24-2911