FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 20 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BETH ANN KUHN, No. 16-35230
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05109-JLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 18, 2017**
Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Beth Ann Kuhn appeals the district court’s decision affirming the denial of
her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security
Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The ALJ did not commit reversible error when evaluating the medical
evidence from Kuhn’s treating cardiologists and two state agency consulting
physicians. First, the ALJ did not commit error when evaluating the medical
evidence from Kuhn’s treating cardiologists. Their clinical findings are consistent
with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination, as neither physician
opined on Kuhn’s limitations, and the medical record indicates that, apart from
right groin pain, Kuhn recovered normally from her surgeries. See Burch v.
Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is susceptible to
more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be
upheld.”). Second, even if the ALJ committed error when evaluating the medical
evidence from the state agency consulting physicians, any such error was harmless.
The subsequently produced evidence, including the treatment notes from Kuhn’s
treating cardiologists dated March through December 2012, does not support a
finding of disability. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012)
(declining to reverse for harmless error when, considering the record as a whole,
the error did not affect the ALJ’s ultimate disability determination).
2
2. The ALJ did not err when evaluating the credibility of Kuhn’s symptom and
limitation testimony. The ALJ provided two legally sufficient reasons for
determining that Kuhn’s testimony was not fully credible: (1) her testimony was
inconsistent with the medical evidence, and (2) her testimony was inconsistent with
her daily activities. Rounds v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th
Cir. 2015). Further, these reasons were supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including Dr. Sundaram’s treatment notes, Kuhn’s agency function report,
and Kuhn’s own testimony from the administrative hearing regarding her daily
activities. This evidence is sufficient to satisfy the substantial evidence standard.
See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Substantial evidence
means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
3. Kuhn’s remaining arguments are based on her underlying contention that the
ALJ committed reversible error in connection with its evaluation of the medical
evidence and its credibility determination. Because the ALJ did not commit any
such error, these arguments fail.
AFFIRMED.
3