FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 17 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSAN LEDDY, No. 14-56620
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00419-DFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Douglas F. McCormick, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 15, 2017***
Pasadena, California
Before: HAWKINS, PARKER,**** and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
****
The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
Susan Leddy appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Social
Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability benefits and
supplemental security income due to a combination of physical and mental
impairments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing the district
court’s decision de novo and the determination of the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) for substantial evidence, Dale v. Colvin, 823 F.3d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 2016),
we affirm.
Leddy contends that the ALJ erred by determining that her mental impairments
were not severe and did not cause any significant functional limitations. The
existence of a mental impairment alone does not establish functional limitation or
disability. See Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993). Substantial
medical evidence—including treatment records indicating that Leddy’s mental
impairments were well-controlled and caused mild, if any, functional limitations as
well as the opinions of examining and consulting psychiatrists—supports the ALJ’s
determination that Leddy’s mental impairments did not cause significant functional
limitations. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2012).
Leddy contends that the ALJ erred by giving inadequate weight to certain
medical evidence, a lay witness statement, and her testimony regarding the severity
of her symptoms. She also argues that the ALJ erred by not applying Rule 201.14 of
2
the Medical Vocational Guidelines. Leddy waived these arguments by failing to
sufficiently raise them below, and we do not consider them. See Warre v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Leddy has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances justify
supplementing the record on appeal with medical records relating to physical
impairments post-dating the ALJ’s decision by several years. See Lowry v. Barnhart,
329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, Leddy’s Motion to Supplement the
Record (Docket Entry No. 29) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3