NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 12 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHALOM M. HARRIS, No. 16-35585
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01387-BAT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit
Judges
Shalom Harris appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Harris’s application for supplemental
security income disability benefits 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, Brown-Hunter v.
Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The ALJ supported his decision to give Dr. Ruddell’s opinion “little weight”
with specific and legitimate reasons derived from the evidentiary record. Dr.
Ruddell conducted her examination with a materially incomplete understanding of
Harris’s mental health and neurological condition. By contrast, Dr. Hendrickson’s
detailed opinion took Harris’s Asperger’s condition into consideration. The ALJ
concluded that Dr. Hendrickson’s opinion was “more reliable and accurate” as well
as consistent with the views of her treating psychiatrist.
The ALJ properly rejected that part of Dr. Hendrickson’s opinion regarding
marked limitations in interacting with supervisors based on evidence in the record
showing that Harris engaged appropriately with medical providers and reported no
problems interacting with non-family members. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that the ALJ may
properly reject a medical opinion that is contradicted by other medical evidence).
The Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment properly accounted for the
remaining limitations in Dr. Hendrickson’s thorough opinion. See Stubbs-
Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming the ALJ’s
assessment of specific functional limitations based on substantial evidence in the
medical record).
2 16-35585
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s interpretation of the medical
opinions from Dr. Weir, Dr. Thuline, Dr. Ignacio, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Fligstein,
and the RFC accounts for all relevant limitations in these opinions. See Stubbs-
Danielson, 539 F.3d at 1174 (affirming the ALJ’s RFC assessment based on
substantial evidence); Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193 (explaining that this court must
defer to the ALJ when the evidence supports more than one interpretation).
Harris complains that the ALJ erred in failing to acknowledge other
evidence supporting her case. However, the ALJ indicated that he had given
careful consideration to “all of the evidence.” We find no error in not mentioning
some doctors by name.
The ALJ provided several clear and convincing reasons to discredit Harris’s
testimony regarding the intensity of her symptoms. See Vasquez v. Astrue, 572
F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). First, the ALJ properly determined that specific
testimony regarding Harris’s physical, social, and cognitive limitations was
inconsistent with specific objective medical evidence. See Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d
at 494 (requiring the ALJ to link specific medical evidence to the specific
testimony it discredits). Second, the ALJ properly discredited Harris’s testimony
based on inconsistencies with her activities. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639
(9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that an ALJ can properly reject claimant testimony
based on activities that are inconsistent with the testimony). Third, the ALJ
3 16-35585
properly discredited Harris’s statements regarding her inability to lift her niece or
look for work based on inconsistent statements in the record. See Tommasetti v.
Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). Fourth, the ALJ properly relied on a
lack of objective medical evidence showing anger and anxiety during social
interactions with non-family members as one factor in discrediting Harris’s
testimony regarding her functional limitations from anger and anxiety. See Burch
v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that the ALJ can
properly rely on a lack of supporting objective medical evidence as one factor in
discrediting claimant testimony). Even assuming that SSR 16-3p applies
retroactively, the ALJ properly focused on evaluating Harris’s symptoms and not
her character for truthfulness. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 n.5 (9th
Cir. 2017).
The ALJ properly rejected the lay testimony of Harris’s mother based on
inconsistencies with Harris’s own testimony and the medical evidence. See Lewis
v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511-12 (9th Cir. 2001) (including inconsistencies with
claimant testimony and with medical evidence as germane reasons to discredit lay
testimony).
AFFIRMED.
4 16-35585