NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORRAINE FREEMAN, No. 17-15670
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01031-BAM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2018**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges
Lorraine Freeman appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Freeman’s application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act. We review a district court’s decision to affirm a
*
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).
determination of the Social Security Administration de novo. Garrison v. Colvin,
759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014). Because we conclude that the Commissioner’s
determination was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error, we
affirm.
The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for (1) giving “little weight” to
Dr. Dhawan’s opinion, and (2) only “some weight” to Dr. Singh’s opinion. See id.
at 1012 (requiring specific and legitimate reasons to reject the contradicted opinion
of a treating or examining physician). Dr. Dhawan examined Freeman only one
time, and both Dr. Dhawan’s and Dr. Singh’s opinions “contrast[ed] sharply with
other evidence of record, particularly the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Van
Kirk.” Dr. Van Kirk opined that Freeman “was capable of working at a light
exertional level, with postural, manipulative, and environmental limitations.” In
contrast to the diminished weighting given to Dr. Dhawan and Dr. Singh, the ALJ
gave “substantial weight” to Dr. Van Kirk’s input. The ALJ explained his
evaluative choice as follows: Dr. Van Kirk’s “opinion was based upon a thorough,
well-documented examination. Additionally, Dr. Van Kirk is Board-certified in
orthopedics, which gives his opinion greater weight.” See Molina v. Astrue, 674
F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the ALJ may give greater weight
to the opinion of a specialist in the relevant field).
Moreover, the ALJ properly discredited Freeman’s testimony based on her
2 17-15670
activities, reasonably concluding that even with several accommodations, her
ability to maintain a high grade point average in college classes and drive a long
distance to campus was inconsistent with the degree of limitations she alleged in
her testimony. See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1016 (explaining that the ALJ properly
discredits claimant testimony when their activities as actually performed are
inconsistent with their testimony regarding their limitations).
Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in either formulating his hypothetical
question to the vocational expert, or in determining Freeman’s residual functional
capacity.
We do not consider any additional contentions that are not specifically and
distinctly raised in Freeman’s opening brief. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec.
Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15670