FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 03 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JO PRUETT, No. 15-16033
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-08068-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 25, 2016 **
Before: D. NELSON, GRABER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jo Pruett appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner
of Social Security’s denial of Pruett’s application for disability insurance benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act. Pruett alleged disability due to hip 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).
shoulder dislocation, diabetic neuropathy in feet, arthritis in knees, hypertension,
obesity, lumbar degenerative disease, and fibromyalgia. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court’s order affirming the administrative law judge’s
(ALJ) denial of benefits de novo, reversing “only if the ALJ’s decision was not
supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole or if the ALJ applied the
wrong legal standard.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012).
“Even when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we
must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably
drawn from the record.” Id. at 1111.
1. The ALJ provided “specific, legitimate reasons . . . based on substantial
evidence in the record” when affording less than significant weight to treating
rheumatologist Dr. Vijaybhanu Mahadevan’s findings. Valentine v. Comm’r Soc.
Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The ALJ permissibly found Dr. Mahadevan’s environmental limits for Pruett,
which stated that Pruett must avoid even occasional exposure to high humidity, air
conditioning, and outdoor cold or heat, unsupported by office treatment records.
See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ also
permissibly found Dr. Mahadevan’s clinical findings to be inconsistent with
2
Pruett’s admitted activities of daily living. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853,
856 (9th Cir. 2001).
2. The ALJ also did not err when formulating the residual functioning capacity
assessment for Pruett. Because the ALJ did not err in giving less weight to Dr.
Mahadevan’s findings, the ALJ properly rejected the extensive limitations outlined
by Dr. Mahadevan. The ALJ adopted limitations resulting from the combination of
Pruett’s impairments, including fibromyalgia, and included only the limitations
that were supported by substantial evidence. See Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec.
Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197–98 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, any arguments
regarding the ALJ’s credibility assessment of Pruett are waived. See Greger v.
Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Pruett was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
AFFIRMED.
3