NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 6 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHAD SNYDER, No. 23-3674 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-05341-BAT v. MEMORANDUM** CAROLYN W. COLVIN*, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 3, 2024*** Portland, Oregon
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
* Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted for her predecessor Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). ** 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). Claimant Chad Snyder appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for supplemental
security income and disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s judgment upholding the denial
of social security benefits and will set aside the decision of an administrative law
judge (ALJ) to deny benefits only if it “contains legal error or is not supported by
substantial evidence.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Tomasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)). We affirm.
1. Snyder first argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical opinions
of Dr. Mark Magdaleno, Dr. Gordon Hale, Dr. Jonathan Ritson, and Dr. Xandra
Rarden. The governing regulations, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a)–(b), required the
ALJ to assess the persuasiveness of each medical opinion and explain how he
considered the consistency and supportability factors. The ALJ sufficiently
explained his analysis as to all four physicians, and substantial evidence supports
each of his conclusions.
The ALJ reasonably found persuasive the medical opinions of state agency
medical consultants, Dr. Mark Magdaleno and Dr. Gordon Hale, both of whom
opined that Snyder would be able to return to light work within one year of his
alleged onset date. The ALJ found that both opinions were consistent with
Snyder’s treatment history and supported by the physicians’ review of the record.
2 Contrary to Snyder’s arguments, his complications in recovering from revision
pelvis surgery in February 2020 do not undermine the ALJ’s consistency findings.
As the ALJ explained, Snyder regained the ability to walk “just fine” within one
year of the alleged onset date, and his symptoms generally improved with
conservative treatment and physical therapy.
The ALJ reasonably discounted the opinion of Dr. Ritson, who stated that
Snyder was intolerant to prolonged standing and lifting. The ALJ found that Dr.
Ritson’s assessment was inconsistent with Snyder’s self-reported ability to stand
for an hour at a time or his significant improvement in functioning after recovering
from his revision pelvis surgery. The ALJ also determined that Dr. Ritson’s
opinion was not entirely supported by his physical examination of Snyder, during
which he observed Snyder’s normal strength, balance, and gait. Although the
record could be interpreted more favorably to Snyder, the ALJ is ultimately
“responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony,
and [] resolving ambiguities.” Ford, 950 F.3d at 1149 (quoting Andrews v. Shalala,
53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). Because the ALJ’s interpretation of the record
was rational, we must defer to it.
The ALJ also reasonably discounted the letters of Dr. Rarden, who opined
that Snyder could only stand for an hour before needing to rest. Because Snyder
fails to argue “with any specificity” that the ALJ erred in assessing Dr. Rarden’s
3 opinion, he has forfeited this challenge. Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,
533 F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). Even if Snyder had preserved his
challenge, substantial evidence would still support the ALJ’s assessment. The ALJ
explained that Dr. Rarden’s opinion was not based on objective medical evidence
but relied on Snyder’s self-reported symptoms, which were inconsistent with his
actual functioning and daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1) (medical
opinion is “more persuasive” if supported by “relevant . . . objective medical
evidence and . . . explanations”).
2. Snyder then argues that the ALJ erred by discounting his subjective
symptom testimony. The ALJ was required to provide “specific, clear and
convincing reasons” for rejecting Snyder’s testimony about the severity of his
symptoms. Smith v. Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014)). The ALJ did so.
The ALJ first explained that Snyder’s alleged inability to stand or walk for
long periods was inconsistent with his significant improvement in functioning. The
ALJ cited the following as evidence of Snyder’s improvement: (1) by November
2019, Snyder was able to walk a mile and travel to Arizona to attend a NASCAR
race; (2) by May 2020, Snyder had recovered from his revision pelvis surgery and
could walk independently and without pain; and (3) by May 2021, Snyder was
only taking Tylenol once per week to manage his pain. The ALJ then explained
4 that Snyder’s testimony was inconsistent with his activities. For example, despite
alleging that he no longer fished because of mobility issues, Snyder’s medical
records indicated that he continued to fish; he once reported standing the whole
day while fishing. The ALJ also pointed out that although Snyder testified that he
used a walker to ambulate in 2020, his treatment records stated that he was not
using an assistive device after his May 2020 discharge and was even able to go on
a five-hour hike in November 2020. By August 2021, Snyder was lifting heavy
weights and developed a hernia due to “heavy lifting/ab exercises.”
Because the record reasonably supports the ALJ’s findings, see Ferguson v.
O’Malley, 95 F.4th 1194, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024), substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s assessment of Snyder’s subjective symptom testimony.
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 DEC 6 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHAD SNYDER, No. 23-3674 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-05341-BAT v. MEMORANDUM** CAROLYN W. COLVIN*, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 3, 2024*** Portland, Oregon
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
* Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted for her predecessor Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). ** 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). Claimant Chad Snyder appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for supplemental
security income and disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s judgment upholding the denial
of social security benefits and will set aside the decision of an administrative law
judge (ALJ) to deny benefits only if it “contains legal error or is not supported by
substantial evidence.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Tomasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)). We affirm.
1. Snyder first argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical opinions
of Dr. Mark Magdaleno, Dr. Gordon Hale, Dr. Jonathan Ritson, and Dr. Xandra
Rarden. The governing regulations, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a)–(b), required the
ALJ to assess the persuasiveness of each medical opinion and explain how he
considered the consistency and supportability factors. The ALJ sufficiently
explained his analysis as to all four physicians, and substantial evidence supports
each of his conclusions.
The ALJ reasonably found persuasive the medical opinions of state agency
medical consultants, Dr. Mark Magdaleno and Dr. Gordon Hale, both of whom
opined that Snyder would be able to return to light work within one year of his
alleged onset date. The ALJ found that both opinions were consistent with
Snyder’s treatment history and supported by the physicians’ review of the record.
2 Contrary to Snyder’s arguments, his complications in recovering from revision
pelvis surgery in February 2020 do not undermine the ALJ’s consistency findings.
As the ALJ explained, Snyder regained the ability to walk “just fine” within one
year of the alleged onset date, and his symptoms generally improved with
conservative treatment and physical therapy.
The ALJ reasonably discounted the opinion of Dr. Ritson, who stated that
Snyder was intolerant to prolonged standing and lifting. The ALJ found that Dr.
Ritson’s assessment was inconsistent with Snyder’s self-reported ability to stand
for an hour at a time or his significant improvement in functioning after recovering
from his revision pelvis surgery. The ALJ also determined that Dr. Ritson’s
opinion was not entirely supported by his physical examination of Snyder, during
which he observed Snyder’s normal strength, balance, and gait. Although the
record could be interpreted more favorably to Snyder, the ALJ is ultimately
“responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony,
and [] resolving ambiguities.” Ford, 950 F.3d at 1149 (quoting Andrews v. Shalala,
53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). Because the ALJ’s interpretation of the record
was rational, we must defer to it.
The ALJ also reasonably discounted the letters of Dr. Rarden, who opined
that Snyder could only stand for an hour before needing to rest. Because Snyder
fails to argue “with any specificity” that the ALJ erred in assessing Dr. Rarden’s
3 opinion, he has forfeited this challenge. Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,
533 F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). Even if Snyder had preserved his
challenge, substantial evidence would still support the ALJ’s assessment. The ALJ
explained that Dr. Rarden’s opinion was not based on objective medical evidence
but relied on Snyder’s self-reported symptoms, which were inconsistent with his
actual functioning and daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1) (medical
opinion is “more persuasive” if supported by “relevant . . . objective medical
evidence and . . . explanations”).
2. Snyder then argues that the ALJ erred by discounting his subjective
symptom testimony. The ALJ was required to provide “specific, clear and
convincing reasons” for rejecting Snyder’s testimony about the severity of his
symptoms. Smith v. Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014)). The ALJ did so.
The ALJ first explained that Snyder’s alleged inability to stand or walk for
long periods was inconsistent with his significant improvement in functioning. The
ALJ cited the following as evidence of Snyder’s improvement: (1) by November
2019, Snyder was able to walk a mile and travel to Arizona to attend a NASCAR
race; (2) by May 2020, Snyder had recovered from his revision pelvis surgery and
could walk independently and without pain; and (3) by May 2021, Snyder was
only taking Tylenol once per week to manage his pain. The ALJ then explained
4 that Snyder’s testimony was inconsistent with his activities. For example, despite
alleging that he no longer fished because of mobility issues, Snyder’s medical
records indicated that he continued to fish; he once reported standing the whole
day while fishing. The ALJ also pointed out that although Snyder testified that he
used a walker to ambulate in 2020, his treatment records stated that he was not
using an assistive device after his May 2020 discharge and was even able to go on
a five-hour hike in November 2020. By August 2021, Snyder was lifting heavy
weights and developed a hernia due to “heavy lifting/ab exercises.”
Because the record reasonably supports the ALJ’s findings, see Ferguson v.
O’Malley, 95 F.4th 1194, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024), substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s assessment of Snyder’s subjective symptom testimony. For these same
reasons, the ALJ did not err in determining Snyder’s residual functional capacity
(RFC) assessment or in applying this assessment at step five of the sequential
evaluation process.
3. Finally, Snyder argues that the new evidence he submitted for the first
time to the Appeals Council undermines the ALJ’s decision. We consider post-
hearing evidence “to determine whether, in light of the record as a whole, the
ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Brewes v. Comm’r, Soc.
Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2012). Dr. Rarden’s updated opinion
that Snyder could only sit or stand for an hour at a time does not undercut the
5 ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Rarden’s original opinion was unsupported by objective
medical evidence and inconsistent with Snyder’s functioning and activities.
Similarly, the lay witness statement of Snyder’s girlfriend, Tea Faulconer, who
corroborated Snyder’s alleged physical limitations, does not invalidate the ALJ’s
reasons for discounting Snyder’s subjective symptom testimony. Substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Snyder was not disabled at step five.
AFFIRMED.