Nancy Ash v. Nancy Berryhill

Ninth Circuit

Nancy Ash v. Nancy Berryhill

676 F. App'x 632

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 2017

Docket14-35475

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 676 F. App'x 632 (Nancy Ash v. Nancy Berryhill) 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

Nancy Ash v. Nancy Berryhill, 676 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Nancy G. Ash appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) did not err in finding that Ash’s testimony about her pain and other symptoms was “less than credible.” The ALJ provided two specific, clear and convincing reasons for her credibility finding by referring to (1) medical evidence that was inconsistent with Ash’s testimony and (2) evidence that Ash’s medications had been “relatively effective” in controlling her symptoms. See Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). Any error in the ALJ’s third reason— Ash’s failure to receive the medical care one would expect for a totally disabled individual—was therefore harmless in light of the two other, valid reasons for the ALJ’s credibility finding. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1122.

Ash contends that the ALJ’s credibility finding was inadequate because the ALJ used circular reasoning in finding that *633 Ash’s statements were not credible “to the extent they [were] inconsistent with the ... residual functional capacity assessment.” This contention lacks merit because the ALJ proceeded to give specific reasons for the credibility finding. See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014).

Further, the ALJ erred in failing to address the lay witness’s statement, but this error was harmless because the witness did not describe any limitations beyond those that Ash described herself. See Ghanim, 768 F.3d at 1165; Molina, 674 F.3d at 1122.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nancy G. Ash appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) did not err in finding that Ash’s testimony about her pain and other symptoms was “less than credible.” The ALJ provided two specific, clear and convincing reasons for her credibility finding by referring to (1) medical evidence that was inconsistent with Ash’s testimony and (2) evidence that Ash’s medications had been “relatively effective” in controlling her symptoms. See Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). Any error in the ALJ’s third reason— Ash’s failure to receive the medical care one would expect for a totally disabled individual—was therefore harmless in light of the two other, valid reasons for the ALJ’s credibility finding. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1122.

Ash contends that the ALJ’s credibility finding was inadequate because the ALJ used circular reasoning in finding that *633 Ash’s statements were not credible “to the extent they [were] inconsistent with the ... residual functional capacity assessment.” This contention lacks merit because the ALJ proceeded to give specific reasons for the credibility finding. See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014).

Further, the ALJ erred in failing to address the lay witness’s statement, but this error was harmless because the witness did not describe any limitations beyond those that Ash described herself. See Ghanim, 768 F.3d at 1165; Molina, 674 F.3d at 1122.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 F. App'x 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nancy-ash-v-nancy-berryhill-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack