`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`FILED
`
`
`NOV 30 2020
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`No. 18-17284
`
`
`D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02167-JZB
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`PATRICK DINGMAN,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
`Social Security,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`
`Before:
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Arizona
`John Zachary Boyle, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted November 23, 2020**
`
`GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
`
`Patrick Dingman appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
`
`Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Dingman’s 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, Molina v.
`
`
`*
` 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
`
`The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) provided specific, clear, and
`
`convincing reasons to discount Dingman’s symptom testimony. See Orn v. Astrue,
`
`495 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard for rejecting claimant’s testimony
`
`about the severity of symptoms). The ALJ properly discounted Dingman’s
`
`testimony as inconsistent with his daily activities and because the evidence showed
`
`his symptoms improved with treatment. See id. at 639 (ALJ may discount
`
`claimant’s testimony if the claimant’s daily activities contradict the testimony);
`
`Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006)
`
`(“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling
`
`for the purpose of determining eligibility for [disability insurance] benefits”). Any
`
`error in the ALJ’s additional reasons for discounting Dingman’s symptom
`
`testimony was harmless. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115 (error is harmless where it
`
`is “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination” (citation and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for assigning little weight
`
`to the controverted opinion of treating physician Dr. Anderson. See Batson v.
`
`Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for
`
`rejecting the controverted opinion of a treating physician). The ALJ properly
`
`found Dr. Anderson’s opinion inconsistent with the medical evidence of record,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`including records indicating that Dingman was cleared to return to work, and
`
`Dingman’s significant activities of daily living, including evidence that he was the
`
`primary care provider for his young son. See id. (“an ALJ may discredit treating
`
`physicians’ opinions that are . . . unsupported by the record as a whole, or by
`
`objective medical findings” (citation omitted)); Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
`
`Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 601-02 (9th Cir. 1999) (inconsistency between medical
`
`opinion and reported daily activities was a specific and legitimate reason to reject
`
`opinion). While the ALJ may have erred in failing to expressly address Dr.
`
`Anderson’s August 2014 and October 2016 opinions, see Tommasetti v. Astrue,
`
`533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion
`
`evidence.”), any error was harmless in light of the ALJ’s other specific and
`
`legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Anderson’s similar assessments. See
`
`Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115.
`
`Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to credit the opinions of
`
`the state agency medical consultants. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144,
`
`1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (contrary opinion of a non-examining medical expert may
`
`constitute substantial evidence when it is consistent with other independent
`
`evidence in the record).
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
