NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAMELA A. MAESTAS, No. 14-35956
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05878-KLS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Karen L. Strombom, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 27, 2017**
Before: NELSON, TROTT, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Pamela Maestas appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Maestas’s application for
supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ghanim v. Colvin,
736 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The ALJ identified specific, clear and convincing reasons that are supported
by substantial evidence for discounting Maestas’s credibility regarding the
debilitating effects of her symptoms: (1) there was a lack of supporting objective
medical evidence for Maestas’s subjective complaints; and (2) there were
inconsistencies between Maestas’s subjective complaints and her activities of daily
living. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding that lack
of medical evidence is a factor that the ALJ can consider in credibility analysis);
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (listing among proper
considerations for credibility assessment an engagement in activities of daily living
that are inconsistent with the alleged symptoms).
The ALJ gave the following specific and legitimate reasons for assigning
only “little weight” to Dr. Wentworth’s May 2010 opinion regarding Maestas’s
functional limitations: (1) treatment notes and objective findings were within
normal limits; and (2) Dr. Wentworth’s opinion was not supported by subsequent
assessments. The ALJ had specific and legitimate reasons for assigning only “little
weight” to Dr. Wentworth’s November 2010 opinion: (1) there was no record
support for Dr. Wentworth’s restricted limitations on Maestas’s lifting, sitting and
standing when in fact the limitations on lifting are inconsistent with Dr.
2 14-35956
Wentworth’s November 2011 assessment that Maestas could lift a maximum of 20
pounds and lift 10 pounds frequently; and (2) this opinion was inconsistent with
Maestas’s physical therapy reports showing overall improvement, decreased pain
and symptoms as well as treatment reports indicating minimal pain or tenderness.
The ALJ gave the following specific and legitimate reasons for assigning Dr.
Wentworth’s November 2011 opinion only some weight: Maestas’s activities and
clinical findings did not support this opinion. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830
(9th Cir. 1995) (holding that the ALJ must make findings setting forth specific and
legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in order to reject the
contradicted opinion of a treating physician).
The Commissioner’s determination at Step Two in the sequential evaluation
process is supported by substantial evidence. Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114
(9th Cir. 1999). The ALJ properly relied on the absence of record medical evidence
sufficient to support a determination that Maestas’s depression, anxiety disorder,
impulse control disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and post-traumatic stress
disorder, considered singly and in combination, did not cause more than minimal
limitation in Maestas’s ability to perform basic mental work activities. See Webb
v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e must determine whether the
ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence clearly established
3 14-35956
that [the claimant] did not have a medically severe impairment or combination of
impairments.”).
The ALJ included in the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment all
the limitations that were supported by, and consistent with, substantial record
evidence. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005). Because the
functional limitations identified by the ALJ in the RFC for light work with
limitations, and in the alternative for sedentary work, were supported by the
medical evidence that the ALJ credited, there was no harmful error at Steps Four or
Five of the sequential evaluation process. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747,
756-57 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the limitations included in the hypothetical
propounded to a vocational expert need only be supported by substantial record
evidence).
The new evidence that the Appeals Council considered does not change that
fact that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. Brewes v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1159-60, 1162-66 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[W]hen a
claimant submits evidence for the first time to the Appeals Council, which
considers that evidence in denying review of the ALJ’s decision, the new evidence
is part of the administrative record, which the district court must consider in
determining whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence.”)
4 14-35956
AFFIRMED.
5 14-35956