Shannon Belden v. Martin O'Malley

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 22, 2024
• Docket: 23-35350
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHANNON A. BELDEN, No. 23-35350

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05524-SKV

v. MEMORANDUM* MARTIN J. O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Sarah Kate Vaughan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 20, 2024** Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Shannon Belden appeals the district court’s order affirming an

administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her application for disability

insurance benefits and social security income. In her appeal, Belden argues that

* 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). the ALJ erred when discounting the opinion of her treating nurse practitioner, her

own testimony, and the testimony of her husband, regarding the severity of her

medical issues.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review the district

court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of social security benefits de novo and

will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error or is not

supported by substantial evidence.” Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th

Cir. 2020) (quoting Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008))

(quotation marks omitted). “Where evidence is susceptible to more than one

rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.” Burch v.

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm the district court.

1. Because Belden filed her claim prior to March 27, 2017, we apply the

regulations in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. Typically, “[i]f a treating or

examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ

may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported

by substantial evidence.” Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th

Cir. 2008). Opinions from certain medical sources, such as a nurse practitioner,

may be discounted for germane reasons. See Britton v. Colvin, 787 F.3d 1011,

1013 (9th Cir. 2015). “[T]he ALJ is the final arbiter with respect to resolving

ambiguities in the medical evidence.” Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041–42.

2 The ALJ articulated multiple reasons for not giving much weight to the

opinion of Elaine Pichette, Belden’s nurse practitioner, regarding the severity of

Belden’s mental health issues. Pichette’s opinion consisted of a checklist that

featured little elaboration. The notes from Pichette’s prior examinations of Belden

are more detailed than, and inconsistent with, her conclusions on the checklist.

Pichette’s opinion was also contradicted by the medical record and Belden’s own

testimony regarding her daily activities. The ALJ did not err by giving little

weight to her opinion.

2. If a claimant presents objective medical evidence of an impairment

that could be expected to produce the symptoms alleged, “the ALJ can reject the

claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific,

clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995,

1014–15 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th

Cir.1996)). “When objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with

the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting

such testimony.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 498 (9th Cir. 2022).

“Contradiction with the medical record is a sufficient basis for rejecting the

claimant’s subjective testimony.” Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533

F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008). Another appropriate consideration is “whether

the claimant engages in daily activities inconsistent with the alleged

3 symptoms.” Lingenfelter, v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007).

Moreover, “evidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to discount a

claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment.” Parra v. Astrue, 481

F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th

Cir. 1995)).

The ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting

Belden’s testimony. Belden’s medical records, along with her statements to her

care providers, contradict her statements regarding the severity of her physical and

mental ailments. Belden’s description of her daily activities also contradicts her

testimony. Additionally, Belden’s treatment plan was conservative, and her

symptoms generally improved when she took medication. The ALJ noted each of

these reasons when discounting Belden’s testimony. Therefore, the ALJ did not

err. And because Belden’s husband’s testimony was largely a facsimile of her own

testimony, the ALJ did not err in discounting his testimony as well.1

AFFIRMED.

1 Because we hold that the ALJ did not err, we do not address Belden’s derivative arguments.