FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA K. AITKEN, No. 12-35682
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00065-SEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District
Judge.***
*
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 Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy, III, District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Brenda Aitken appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Social
Security Administration’s denial of her application for disability insurance
benefits. The underlying disability application was based on Aitken’s alleged
inability to work due to fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, asthma, and
depression. For the reasons below, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s decision in a social security case.
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). “The Social Security
Administration’s disability determination should be upheld unless it contains legal
error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625,
630 (9th Cir. 2007). “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but
less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035,
1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The court upholds the decision of an Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) “where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational
interpretation.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989).
Aitken claims that the ALJ erred in weighing medical opinion evidence.
Specifically, she argues that the ALJ erred by failing to set forth clear and
convincing reasons for rejecting the opinions of her treating physicians over those
of non-treating physicians.
2
“If . . . a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity
of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other
substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the ALJ gives it] controlling weight.” 20
C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “Where [a treating physician’s] opinion is contradicted
. . . it may be rejected for ‘specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by
substantial evidence in the record.’” Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533
F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31
(9th Cir. 1995)).
Because opinions of state agency examiners and a medical expert
contradicted the treating physicians’ opinions, the ALJ needed only to meet the
specific and legitimate reasons standard of Carmickle. 533 F.3d at 1164. The ALJ
considered objective medical evidence in weighing the opinions of Aitken’s
treating physicians, discussed Aitken’s actual work history, and considered
Aitken’s other daily activities. The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for
giving “little weight” to the opinions of Aitken’s treating physicians.
Aitken also argues that the ALJ improperly discredited her subjective pain
testimony because the ALJ’s findings lacked sufficient specificity. If the objective
medical evidence shows that the claimant’s impairment(s) “could reasonably be
3
expected to produce pain or other symptoms” and there is no evidence of
malingering, the ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of
her symptoms with “specific findings stating clear and convincing reasons for
doing so.” Batson v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.
2004).
The ALJ found that Aitken’s subjective allegations regarding her pain were
inconsistent with her daily activities. The ALJ also noted that Aitken’s
chiropractor found her to be responding well to treatment and gave her an
“excellent” prognosis. Because the ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing
reasons for rejecting Aitken’s subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ did not err
in weighing Aitken’s credibility. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
Cir. 2001).
Aitken challenges the ALJ’s finding that she was not disabled at step five,
claiming that the Vocational Expert’s (“VE”) hypothetical relied on by the ALJ did
not include all of Aitken’s impairments, specifically her subjective pain symptoms.
Because the ALJ properly discredited Aitken’s subjective symptom testimony, her
claim that the VE’s hypothetical was incomplete is without merit. See Bayliss v.
Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217–18 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
4