FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 09 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARA L. CREECH, No. 14-35499
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00072-SEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 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 September 4, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Sarah L. Creech appeals from the district court’s judgment
affirming the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, we may set
*
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).
aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or rests
on legal error. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). We
affirm.
1. Substantial evidence supports the determination of the administrative law
judge ("ALJ") that Plaintiff’s depression and anxiety are not severe impairments.
The report of the licensed clinical psychologist supports that finding. See Molina
v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that an ALJ may give
more weight to the opinion of a specialist than to the opinion of non-specialists
about issues related to the relevant specialty). The ALJ properly accounted for
Plaintiff’s mental limitations in the residual functional capacity analysis, which
included a finding that Plaintiff could not perform work requiring constant focus.
2. The ALJ permissibly discounted the contradicted opinion of Dr. Nichols,
Plaintiff’s treating physician, by providing specific and legitimate reasons,
supported by substantial evidence. See Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1161 (stating standard
for rejecting contradicted opinion of treating physician). The ALJ noted that Dr.
Nichols’ opinion was not supported by other medical evidence, especially the
physical consultative examiner’s report finding that Plaintiff had a wide range of
pain-free motion.
2
3. The ALJ permissibly declined to credit Plaintiff’s testimony concerning
the extent of her physical limitations by offering specific, clear, and convincing
reasons for finding her not fully credible. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995,
1014–15 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating standard). The ALJ gave two reasons: that the
medical findings were inconsistent with the claimed limitations (lying in bed all
day, every day, since the 2007 surgery) and that Plaintiff’s daily activities
suggested greater physical capacity. Both grounds are supported by the record.
Dr. Mitgang found that Plaintiff had a wide range of pain-free movement.
She got on and off the examining table "with ease, rapidly"; could easily squat,
rise, and walk rapidly on heels and toes; and showed no back, hip, or leg pain with
various tests. Dr. Mitgang found Plaintiff’s objective condition "unimpressive"
and inconsistent with her "very severe complaints."
Plaintiff testified that she sometimes drives her children to school, cooks and
does household chores, goes up and down the stairs in her house, shops for
groceries, sweeps, "picks up stuff," mops, and vacuums. She testified that she can
lift five pounds, can sometimes walk around (such as at the grocery store) for up to
45 minutes, and has no difficulty with stooping, crouching, or similar motions.
The daily activities alone would not support the ALJ’s finding, because the record
does not show that Plaintiff could "spend a substantial part" of her day engaged in
those pursuits, Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1165, but combined with the physicians’
3
objective observations and findings, the daily activities support the ALJ’s ultimate
conclusion.
AFFIRMED.
4