FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 19 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENDA J. BUTLER, No. 17-15056
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
1:15-cv-00466-HG-KSC
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of MEMORANDUM*
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2019 **
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges,
Kenda Butler appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security
Administration’s denial of Title II 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).
administrative decision for substantial evidence and legal error. Garrison v.
Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The ALJ gave at least two specific, clear and convincing reasons supported
by substantial evidence for finding that Butler’s subjective symptom testimony was
not entirely credible: (1) Her testimony about the frequency of her severe
headaches was inconsistent with statements she made to providers; and (2) her
testimony about the limited use of her right hand, eyesight, and lack of balance was
inconsistent with the medical records and her extensive daily living activities.
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112-14 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that
inconsistent statements, medical evidence, and daily living activities may provide
clear and convincing reasons to reject subjective symptom testimony). The ALJ
reasonably considered the fact that she stopped working for reasons other than her
disability. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008).1
The ALJ also gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial
evidence for giving only some weight to the opinions of Dr. Devere and Dr. Fong.
1
The ALJ erred in her analysis of Butler’s decision to forego certain other
pain medications for her headaches. Butler offered a plausible explanation for why
she declined to try different medications – viz., she tried a similar medication in the
past that made her feel worse, and she feared addiction to narcotic pain killers.
These are reasonable explanations, even if another patient might have weighed the
potential benefits and risks differently.
2
The ALJ reasonably adopted the findings that were consistent with the objective
medical findings, Dr. Liem’s treating surgeon notes, and Butler’s testimony about
her ability to use her hands to perform fine motor functions. The opinion that
Butter could only occasionally use her right hand to grasp, finger, and feel was
inconsistent with Butler’s testimony that could perform all fine motor skills, play
the piano or use a computer keyboard for up to 30 minutes at a time, home school
her six-year-old for two hours a day, and engage in other extensive daily living
activities. The opinion that Butler was limited on her left side was inconsistent
with objective findings, including Dr. Devere’s contemporaneous objective
findings of normal left-sided coordination, strength, tone, and reflexes in all of
Butler’s upper and lower extremities. The extremely limited findings regarding
Butler’s ability to sit were inconsistent with Butler’s testimony, medical records,
and her extensive daily living activities. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161-
62 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that an ALJ may consider inconsistent objective
medical findings and daily living activities).
AFFIRMED.
3