FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 14 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARA L. RAWSON, No. 17-35054
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. C16-5135-JPD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James P. Donohue, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, CANBY, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Sara L. Rawson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental
security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo,
Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
1. Opinion evidence
Rawson contends the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by discounting
examining psychologist Dr. Wingate’s August 2010 opinion. However, Rawson
does not point to any specific errors. Appraising medical evidence is within the
ALJ’s purview, see Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2008),
and when evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,” we
uphold the ALJ’s reasonable interpretation. Ryan v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 528
F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008).
Rawson contends that the ALJ erred by discounting Dr. Wingate’s
December 2011 opinion. However, the ALJ properly relied upon the inconsistency
between Dr. Wingate’s 2011opinion and Rawson’s reported daily activities. See
Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). Because the ALJ
reasonably construed Dr. Wingate’s 2011 opinion together with the other medical
evidence, we defer to the ALJ’s interpretation. See Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198.
Rawson contends that the ALJ erred in giving examining psychologist Dr.
Bowes’ opinion little weight. An ALJ may cite inconsistencies between a medical
opinion and a claimant’s activities as grounds for rejecting the medical opinion.
2
Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1162. The ALJ reasonably resolved the conflicts and
ambiguities in Dr. Bowes’ evidence and arrived at a reasonable interpretation. See
Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198.
Rawson contends the ALJ erred by assigning little weight to the opinion of
examining psychologist Dr. Irwin. Rawson does not support her claims with
specific references to the medical record, and fails to identify any substantive
agency error. See Diedrich v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 634, 638 (9th Cir. 2017).
Rawson contends the ALJ erred by assigning mental health counselor
Claudia David’s opinion little weight. The ALJ properly identified the
classification of Ms. David’s profession and provided germane reasons for
discounting Ms. David’s opinion. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th
Cir. 2012); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005).
2. Rawson’s Testimony
The ALJ did not err by discounting Rawson’s testimony. The ALJ applied
the requisite two-step framework and cited specific, clear, and convincing reasons
for discounting Rawson’s statements. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678
(9th Cir. 2017). The ALJ pointed out conflicting statements in Rawson’s
testimony, evidence that Rawson’s daily activities contradicted her claims of
debilitating impairment, and contradictory medical evidence. See Molina, 674
3
F.3d at 1112; Bray v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir.
2009).
3. Lay Witness Testimony
The ALJ did not err in evaluating the lay witness testimony from Rawson’s
mother, Patricia Hanna, and Rawson’s friend, Gary Willis. The ALJ cited germane
reasons for discounting Ms. Hanna’s testimony, including that Ms. Hanna’s
statements were inconsistent with clinical testing and Rawson’s daily activities.
The ALJ cited similar reasons for affording Mr. Willis’ testimony less weight,
including inconsistency between the medical evidence and Rawson’s daily
activities. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir.2001)
4. Residual Functional Capacity and Step Five Findings
Rawson contends the ALJ erred in the assessment of her residual functional
capacity and Step Five findings. Because Rawson has not demonstrated the ALJ
erred in the sequential analysis, this contention is unsupported. See Stubbs-
Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
4