FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 23 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMILY COATY, No. 15-35350
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01348-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2017**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Emily Coaty appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154,
1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The administrative law judge (ALJ) provided specific, clear, and convincing
reasons for finding that Coaty’s testimony and other statements were not fully
credible. Those reasons included Coaty’s failure to recall details of her functional
abilities, Coaty’s reported activities of daily living, and the lack of corroborating
objective medical findings. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112–13 (9th
Cir. 2012) (affirming the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination where the
claimant’s symptom testimony was “inconsistent with her daily activities
throughout the disability period.”); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th
Cir. 2008) (affirming an ALJ’s adverse credibility determination where the
claimant “was a vague witness with respect to the alleged period of disability and
pain symptoms.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Rollins v. Massanari, 261
F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected
on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,
the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the
claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”).
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial
evidence, for giving little weight to the opinion of rheumatologist W. Clay
2
McCord, who only began treating Coaty in June 2011. McCord offered a
retrospective opinion that Coaty’s fibromyalgia had led to Coaty’s disability,
beginning in 2007. In rejecting McCord’s assessment, the ALJ reasoned that
McCord’s opinion was speculative and inconsistent with Coaty’s activities of daily
living during the relevant period, and that contemporaneous medical records from
the relevant period made no mention of symptoms of fibromyalgia. See Tidwell v.
Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming the ALJ’s rejection of a
retrospective medical opinion that was provided by a doctor who first examined the
claimant more than a year after the expiration of her insured status and that was
otherwise contradicted by other record medical evidence); see also Rollins, 261
F.3d at 856 (affirming the ALJ’s rejection of a treating physician’s opinion where
the physician imposed restrictions on the claimant that appeared inconsistent with
the claimant’s daily activities).
In sum, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s non-disability
determination. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 756–57 (9th Cir. 1989);
cf. Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming the ALJ’s non-
disability determination where the ALJ incorporated the limitations attributable to
the claimant’s severe impairments at step four).
AFFIRMED.
3