NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FILED
APR 07 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANCY LYNN MILLER, No. 15-35931
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05068-TSZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 3, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nancy Lynn Miller appeals 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 the district court’s order de novo and may set
aside the denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is
based on legal error. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm.
Miller contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to account
for evidence of limitations related to her mental impairments in the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment. However, the ALJ accommodated all of
Miller’s limitations in the RFC assessment, and the determination that Miller had
the RFC to perform work that involved “simple routine tasks” was supported by
substantial evidence.
Miller contends that the ALJ erred in failing to attribute the opinion of
physician’s assistant Brian Reiton to Dr. Sarah Landrum. Assuming without
deciding that the ALJ erred by dismissing Reiton’s opinion as coming from an
unacceptable medical source without discussing the fact that Dr. Landrum
reviewed and approved Reiton’s treatment note, see Benton ex rel. Benton v.
Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir. 2003) (physician’s opinion was entitled to
greater weight where it was based on both his own knowledge and opinions and
those of a treatment team under his supervision), the error would be harmless in
this case because the ALJ rejected Reiton’s opinion for another reason that is
2
supported by the record, see Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190,
1197 (9th Cir. 2004). Specifically, Reiton’s opinion was inconsistent with the
opinion of a physician who conducted a detailed examination and opined that
Miller had normal grip strength and use of her hands.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s non-disability determination.
AFFIRMED.
3