NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
STEPHANIE D. HOLLENBECK, No. 14-35763
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05722-RBL-
JWL
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner MEMORANDUM*
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2016 **
Before: LEAVY, GRABER and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Stephanie Hollenbeck appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. At step five of the
*
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).
sequential evaluation process, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined
that Hollenbeck could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national
economy. 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 we affirm.
The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding
Hollenbeck’s symptom testimony less than fully credible, including inconsistencies
between Hollenbeck’s testimony and the medical evidence, and inconsistencies
between Hollenbeck’s claims of debilitated functioning and contemporaneous
reports of actual functioning. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533
F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 636 (9th Cir. 2007).
The ALJ provided germane reasons for discounting the lay opinions of
Hollenbeck’s mother and a social worker. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114. The ALJ
articulated the germane reason that Hollenbeck’s mother may have contributed to
Hollenbeck’s view of herself as disabled. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968,
972 (9th Cir. 2006). The ALJ articulated two germane reasons for discounting the
opinion of the social worker: the opinion relied upon statements from Hollenbeck
and her mother, and the opinion was inconsistent with the opinions of the
psychologists who had concluded that Hollenbeck’s limitations were mild to
moderate. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001).
2
The report of examining autism expert Dr. Stephen Altabet, adopted by the
ALJ, did not include any workplace limitations or restrictions for Hollenbeck. The
ALJ reasonably considered Dr. Altabet’s opinion, along with other objective
medical evidence in the record, in formulating the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”). Accordingly, the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial
evidence. Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1173-76 (9th Cir. 2008); see
also Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1005-06 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
3