Richard Velez v. Kilolo Kijakazi
This text of Richard Velez v. Kilolo Kijakazi (Richard Velez v. Kilolo Kijakazi) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD VELEZ, No. 18-17175
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-04064-BLF
v. MEMORANDUM* KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 30, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Richard Velez appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner of
Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under
Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875
* 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). (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
The ALJ considered the requisite factors and applied the correct legal
standard in evaluating the medical opinion evidence. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871
F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)); Batson v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ is
responsible for resolving conflicts in the medical testimony). The ALJ provided
specific and legitimate reasons to discount the opinions of Dr. Yuen as inconsistent
with the medical record, including Velez’s conservative treatment. See Tommasetti
v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (inconsistency between physician’s
opinion and the medical record was a specific and legitimate reason to reject the
opinion).
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the
opinions of Dr. DeBattista. The ALJ noted Velez had received minimal mental
health treatment, and Dr. DeBattista’s opinion was inconsistent with treating
psychologist Dr. Le’s assessment. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th
Cir. 2002) (ALJ need not accept an opinion that is “inadequately supported by
clinical findings”); Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195 (ALJ may discount opinion that is not
supported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings).
The ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting Velez’s
testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms, including that his testimony was
2 18-17175 not supported by the objective medical record, his course of treatment was
conservative, and he exhibited noncompliance with diabetes treatment. See Rollins
v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While subjective pain testimony
cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective
medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the
severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”); Parra v. Astrue, 481
F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (evidence of conservative treatment is sufficient to
discount a claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of an impairment); Molina
v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may properly rely on
unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a
prescribed course of treatment in assessing a claimant’s credibility) superseded by
regulation on other grounds.
The ALJ’s determination of Velez’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
was supported by substantial evidence. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211,
1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (we will affirm the ALJ’s determination of RFC if the ALJ
applied the proper legal standard and his decision is supported by substantial
evidence). The ALJ is not required to incorporate opinion evidence that was
permissibly discounted. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1197.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-17175
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Richard Velez v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-velez-v-kilolo-kijakazi-ca9-2021.