FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 18 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER M. WOOD, No. 17-35322
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01163-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2019 **
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges
Christopher Wood appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social
Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court order de novo and the
*
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).
agency decision for substantial evidence and legal error. Garrison v. Colvin, 759
F.3d 995, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial
evidence for rejecting Wood’s testimony that his mental condition prevented him
from focusing on tasks, leaving his house, being around other people, and working.
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the clear and
convincing standard). The testimony was inconsistent with mental health
treatment records and daily living activities that established an ability to function at
a higher level than Wood claimed at his hearing. Id. at 1113 (upholding an adverse
credibility finding for similar inconsistencies).
The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial
evidence for giving little weight to the opinions of three psychologists who
examined Wood for state benefits, but who did not review his actual treatment
records. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 (requiring specific and legitimate reasons to
give less weight to conflicting medical opinions). The opinions of those
psychologists that Wood had marked to severe limitations in behavior,
concentration, memory, and judgment were inconsistent with treatment notes
documenting that Wood exhibited appropriate eye contact and behavior, clear and
coherent speech, organized and intact thoughts and memory, fair to good judgment,
2
and good concentration. The ALJ’s finding that Wood performed better when
evaluated for treatment compared to examinations aimed at securing benefits is
well-supported by the contrast between the opinions and treatment records.
Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that an ALJ may
give less weight to medical opinions that conflict with treatment notes).
AFFIRMED.
3