NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
OCT 25 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUTH D. COOKSON, No. 14-17403
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02542-CMK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig M. Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 19, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,** Chief
District Judge.
The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff Ruth Cookson’s
application for disability benefits. Cookson challenged the denial in district court.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Raner C. Collins, Chief United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Cookson and the Social Security Commissioner filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, and the district court denied Cookson’s motion and granted the
Commissioner’s motion. Cookson appeals from the district court’s order. We
review the order de novo, Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.
2008), and affirm.
1. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) offered clear, specific, and convincing
reasons for finding Cookson’s testimony about her pain less than fully credible.
Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ found that
Cookson’s daily activities were inconsistent with the weight of medical opinion
evidence, that Cookson left work for reasons unrelated to her disability, and that
Cookson described her activities differently to different physicians. The ALJ also
provided specific and legitimate reasons for giving reduced weight to the opinions
of Dr. Hufford, Cookson’s treating physician, and Dr. Morgan, an examining
psychologist, by, among other things, pointing out that Dr. Hufford’s and Dr.
Morgan’s grave diagnoses were inconsistent with other medical evidence. Bayliss
v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). We also do not accept
Cookson’s argument that the opinions of Dr. Wang and Dr. Cushman were
“rejected” without explanation when the ALJ translated their opinions into a
residual functional capacity assessment. Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d
2
1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). Cookson’s other challenges do not show any legal
error.
2. Though the panel may have weighed the medical opinions differently,
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that, where the available
evidence supports “more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion
that must be upheld”).
AFFIRMED.
3