NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`
`OCT 18 2023
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`
`
`
`No. 22-16575
`
`
`D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00360-DJH
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`FAWN MICHELLE ACUNA,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
`of Social Security,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Arizona
`Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted October 16, 2023**
`Phoenix, Arizona
`
`Before: IKUTA, BADE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Fawn Acuna appeals from a district court decision affirming
`
`the
`
`Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Social Security
`
`disability benefits. “We ‘review the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial
`
`
`*
` 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`
`OCT 18 2023
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`
`
`
`No. 22-16575
`
`
`D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00360-DJH
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`FAWN MICHELLE ACUNA,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
`of Social Security,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Arizona
`Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted October 16, 2023**
`Phoenix, Arizona
`
`Before: IKUTA, BADE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Fawn Acuna appeals from a district court decision affirming
`
`the
`
`Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Social Security
`
`disability benefits. “We ‘review the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial
`
`
`*
` 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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)). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
`
`and we affirm.
`
`1. The ALJ did not err in assigning less weight to the opinions of Acuna’s
`
`treating physicians. Because Acuna applied for benefits before March 27, 2017, the
`
`ALJ was required to evaluate the medical opinion evidence under 20 C.F.R.
`
`§ 404.1527.1 Under those regulations, “[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.”
`
`Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
`
`Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s specific and legitimate reasons for
`
`determining that Acuna’s limitations were less severe than Dr. Robinson and
`
`Dr. Teff indicated.
`
`The ALJ concluded that Dr. Robinson’s check-box assessment was entitled to
`
`little weight because of its conclusory nature and because Dr. Robinson’s sparse
`
`treatment notes did not provide a sufficient explanation for his assessment.
`
`
`1 New regulations govern claims filed after March 27, 2017, but they do not apply
`here. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c; Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 789 (9th Cir.
`2022).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Substantial evidence supports that determination, as an “ALJ need not accept the
`
`opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief,
`
`conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Thomas v. Barnhart,
`
`278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
`
`The ALJ also provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by
`
`substantial evidence for discounting Dr. Teff’s opinion. As the ALJ explained,
`
`Dr. Teff’s opinion that Acuna had “extreme limitations” was inconsistent with his
`
`own exam notes and with other evidence in the record documenting Acuna’s
`
`“normal motor strength, sensation, and reflexes.” Inconsistencies in the medical
`
`record provide a valid basis for discounting a medical provider’s opinion. Ford v.
`
`Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020). Here, we conclude that the ALJ
`
`reasonably weighed the medical evidence. Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041 (“[T]he
`
`ALJ is the final arbiter with respect to resolving ambiguities in the medical
`
`evidence.” (citation omitted)).
`
`2. For substantially similar reasons, the ALJ did not err in assigning little
`
`weight to the opinion of Acuna’s psychologist, Dr. Geary. The ALJ explained that
`
`Dr. Geary’s assessment of Acuna’s “marked or extreme” social limitations was
`
`inconsistent with evidence concerning Acuna’s demeanor, living situation, and
`
`positive interactions with friends and family. The ALJ also found that Dr. Geary’s
`
`opinion about Acuna’s concentration was “internally inconsistent” with his testing
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`results. As previously noted, these types of inconsistencies qualify as specific and
`
`legitimate reasons for rejecting a physician’s opinion. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154.
`
`Dr. Geary’s vague descriptions of Acuna’s limitations provided another appropriate
`
`reason for affording less weight to his opinion. See id. at 1156 (affirming an ALJ’s
`
`discounting of an examining physician’s assessment using the generic descriptions
`
`of “fair” and “limited”).
`
`3. The ALJ gave “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for discounting
`
`Acuna’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms. Smith v. Kijakazi, 14 F.4th
`
`1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1015 (9th
`
`Cir. 2014)). We reject Acuna’s argument that the ALJ “cherry-pick[ed]” evidence
`
`to discount her pain, migraines, and psychiatric conditions. The ALJ credited certain
`
`aspects of Acuna’s testimony, but identified other portions of the testimony that were
`
`inconsistent with Acuna’s exam records and treatment history. “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).
`
`In addition, the ALJ appropriately considered Acuna’s condition and
`
`treatment history during the entire period at issue. The ALJ’s findings that Acuna’s
`
`symptoms improved with treatment provided substantial evidence for discounting
`
`Acuna’s testimony. See Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`(“[E]vidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine
`
`a claim of disability.” (citations omitted)).
`
`Finally, the ALJ’s findings with respect to Acuna’s mental and social
`
`disabilities are also supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to Acuna’s
`
`assertions, the ALJ did not penalize her for being hospitalized only once. Rather,
`
`the ALJ appropriately described Acuna’s hospitalization history in considering
`
`whether her treatment matched the severity of her self-reported symptoms. The
`
`ALJ’s findings that Acuna’s alleged mental and social limitations were inconsistent
`
`with her attempts to find work and complete a bachelor’s degree were also supported
`
`by substantial evidence. See Smartt, 53 F.4th at 499–500.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
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
