NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 08 2016
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ERIC F. GARRISON, No. 13-36070
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00326-JLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 4, 2016**
Seattle, Washington
Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
1. The ALJ did not err by assigning “little weight” to the opinion of Dr.
Yuodelis-Flores. An ALJ may discount the opinion of a treating physician when
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
page 2
he provides “specific and legitimate reasons” for doing so. Lester v. Chater, 81
F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended). The ALJ offered two specific and
legitimate reasons to distrust Dr. Yuodelis-Flores, both of which are amply
supported by the record. First, Dr. Yuodelis-Flores’s opinion was inconsistent
with a report from Dr. Koenen, another one of Garrison’s examining physicians.
See Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001) (as amended)
(noting that ALJs are responsible for “resolving conflicts in medical testimony”).
Second, Dr. Yuodelis-Flores reported that some of the memory problems she
observed in Garrison might be explained by his “discomfort during [the]
interview.”
2. The ALJ did not err in discounting the opinion of Dr. Carstens. As the
ALJ correctly noted, Dr. Carstens’s report was internally inconsistent. One portion
of Dr. Carstens’s report suggested that Garrison suffered from “marked” social and
functional limitations, but a later portion of the same report suggested that
Garrison’s functional limitations were mild or even non-existent. Because Dr.
Carstens’s opinion was confusing and illogical, the ALJ was within his discretion
to assign it “little weight.”
page 3
3. The ALJ did not err in discounting the opinion of Dr. Widlan. Dr.
Widlan suggested that Garrison had markedly impaired abilities to function in the
workplace. But this opinion was inconsistent with that of Dr. Koenen, who
reported that Garrison’s limitations were much less severe. Given the difference in
opinion among examining physicians, the ALJ was entitled to discount the more
severe assessment offered by Dr. Widlan. See Edlund, 253 F.3d at 1156.
4. The ALJ did not err in discounting the psychometric assessment prepared
by Sara Trusz, a student working under the supervision of Dr. Wieneke. Trusz
found that Garrison’s “working memory” was in the bottom .01 percentile, and that
most of his memory abilities were in the “[e]xtremely [l]ow” range. The ALJ
distrusted this radical assessment of Garrison’s functioning because other reports
were “more consistent with [Garrison’s] demonstrated functioning as evidenced by
his daily activities.” Trusz’s report cannot be squared with the facts that Garrison
attended community college, showed up for his AA meetings, cleaned the condo
where he lived, shopped, cooked and reliably attended his medical appointments.
The gap between Trusz’s assessment of Garrison and Garrison’s own account of
his daily activities was a sufficient reason for discounting the psychometric
analysis.
page 4
5. The district court found that Garrison waived any argument regarding his
own credibility by failing to identify any specific errors in the ALJ’s decision.
Because Garrison waived this line of argument below, we will not consider it for
the first time on appeal. See Spurlock v. FBI, 69 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1995).
In any event, the ALJ provided a specific and valid reason for discrediting
Garrison’s testimony. As the ALJ noted, Garrison’s reports concerning his own
limitations were belied by evidence of his daily activities. See Moncada v. Chater,
60 F.3d 521, 524 (9th Cir. 1995).
6. The Commissioner’s unopposed motion for judicial notice of AM 13066
is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.