FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 05 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENNY M. HOYT, No. 13-35682
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00163-JPH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
James P. Hutton, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2015**
Seattle, Washington
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Jenny M. Hoyt appeals from the district court’s order affirming the
Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The ALJ did not err in discounting the opinion of treating physician Dr.
Mabee, as she gave “specific, legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on
substantial evidence in the record.” Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169
F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041
(9th Cir.1995)). Specifically, Dr. Mabee’s opinions were based on check-box
forms, and they were predicated on the self-reporting of Hoyt, who the ALJ
determined was not credible. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.
2012) (“[T]he ALJ may ‘permissibly reject[ ] ... check-off reports that [do] not
contain any explanation of the bases of their conclusions.” (internal citation
omitted)); Morgan, 169 F.3d at 602 (“A physician’s opinion of disability premised
to a large extent upon the claimant’s own accounts of his symptoms and limitations
may be disregarded where those complaints have been properly discounted.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Further, the ALJ’s decision remains supported by substantial evidence,
notwithstanding the submission of the report of Dr. Arnold subsequent to such
decision. Reports “submitted after the ALJ issued [her] decision” are by their
nature “less persuasive.” Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1996).
Further, the reasons that the ALJ gave for rejecting the opinions of Dr. Mabee
“apply with equal force” to the opinion of Dr. Arnold. Both opinions are based on
2
the same check-box form, and based on the same self-reports of Hoyt. See Molina,
674 F.3d at 1122 (explaining that, even when the ALJ fails to comment upon
certain testimony, such failure is harmless when the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting
other testimony “apply with equal force” to the ignored testimony).
AFFIRMED.
3