FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 26 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICK ALLEN HART, No. 11-17375
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01760-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 24, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges
Rick Allen Hart appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and
*
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).
XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and affirm.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly accorded “less weight” to the
contradicted opinion of Dr. Beatrice Song, a treating primary care physician. See
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ provided
specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving “the
most weight” to the opinions of another treating physician and an examining
physician. The ALJ explained that the other treating physician had relevant
expertise as an orthopedic specialist, see Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112, that Dr. Song’s
opinion was undermined by evidence that Hart performed substantial gainful
activity during part of the period during which Dr. Song found him disabled, see
Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2009), and
that Dr. Song’s opinion rested to a large extent on Hart’s self-reports, see Ghanim
v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). Any error in the ALJ’s additional
reasons for according less weight to Dr. Song’s opinion was harmless. See Molina,
674 F.3d at 1115 (an ALJ’s error in providing both valid and invalid reasons for a
finding is harmless if there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s
decision and the error does not negate the validity of the ALJ’s ultimate
conclusion).
2
The ALJ did not err in finding that Hart was not fully credible in his
statements regarding disabling pain. The ALJ provided specific, clear, and
convincing reasons for his credibility finding by referring both to the medical
evidence and to the timing of Hart’s sale of his service station business. See
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007); Burch v. Barnhart,
400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005).
The ALJ’s finding that Hart had the residual functional capacity to perform
the full range of sedentary work by August 13, 2007, is supported by the ALJ’s
assessment of the doctors’ opinions.
The ALJ erred in failing to discuss a lay witness’s statement, but this error
was harmless. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114, 1122.
We do not address the contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the
ALJ erred by finding that Hart engaged in substantial gainful activity until October
2006. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
3