FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA L. MILLER, No. 13-35870
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00225-RHW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2014**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Sandra L. Miller appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming
the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for
disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Miller
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Appellant’s unopposed motion for submission on the briefs without
oral argument is granted. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable
for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
contends that the ALJ failed to properly consider the opinions of testifying medical
expert Reuben Beezy, M.D., and of Nurse Practitioner Blaze Burnham that Miller
would be limited to sedentary or less than sedentary work. Miller also contends
that the ALJ failed to meet her burden to fully and fairly develop the record, where
Miller represented herself at the hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court’s order de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d
1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not
supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id.
Miller’s contention that the ALJ erred in finding that she was capable of
light work and in discounting Dr. Beezy’s opinion that she was limited to
sedentary work lacks merit. The ALJ reasonably found that Dr. Beezy did not give
a well-supported basis for his opinion and that it was not supported by the medical
evidence of record, including the conflicting opinion of treating Advanced
Registered Nurse Practitioner Paddy Carlson and an electrodiagnostic (“EMG”)
study conducted on December 27, 2002, which indicated that Miller had only very
mild carpal tunnel syndrome on the right. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947,
956-57 (9th Cir. 2002).
2
Miller’s contention that the ALJ failed to properly consider and afford
sufficient weight to treating Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner Blaze
Burnham’s opinion that Miller would be limited to sedentary work or lower also
lacks merit. The ALJ’s conclusion that the more restrictive RFC finding was
unjustified based upon the record was a sufficient reason for discounting
Burnham’s opinion. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111. Miller contends that the ALJ
failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting Burnham’s opinion, because the
ALJ found that there was no reason to change Miller’s residual functional capacity
assessment despite new information from the 2002 EMG study. This contention
lacks merit because the ALJ provided a germane reason for rejecting Burnham’s
opinion, explaining that the new EMG findings indicated only very mild right
carpal tunnel syndrome. See id.
The ALJ fulfilled her duty to fairly and fully develop the record and to
ensure that Miller’s interests were considered where she was unrepresented at the
hearing. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
3