NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
FEB 7 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRELL L. COMRAS, No. 18-36056
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05082-MAT
v. MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Mary Alice Theiler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 5, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: M. SMITH and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,***
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for
the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Terrell L. Comras appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s order affirming the denial
of social security benefits by the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) de novo and
reverse only if the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence or is
based on legal error. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). We
affirm.
The ALJ did not err in giving limited weight to Comras’s therapist or
consulting psychologist regarding Comras’s disability. The ALJ provided clear and
convincing reasons that were supported by substantial evidence in the
record. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To reject an
uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining doctor, an ALJ must state clear
and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence. If a treating or
examining doctor's opinion is contradicted by another doctor's opinion, an ALJ may
only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by
substantial evidence.” (citation omitted)). Comras’s therapist’s opinion as to
Comras’s abilities and limitations was contradicted by Comras’s testimony and by
the psychologist’s opinion. The psychologist’s prognosis was of limited value
2
because Comras did not avail herself of the recommended treatment plans, failed to
take her medication as prescribed, and did not attend counseling consistently.
The ALJ also did not err in discounting Comras’s testimony. The ALJ offered
specific, clear and convincing reasons for finding Comras not credible, including
that her medical records, self-dosing of psychiatric medications, and significant
breaks in treatment for nonmedical reasons contradicted her testimony about her
daily activities and medical issues. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1040
(9th Cir. 2007) (noting the factors that we have found relevant when reviewing an
ALJ’s credibility determination, including daily activities inconsistent with alleged
symptoms, the use of medication, and failure to follow, without adequate
explanation, a prescribed course of treatment). Comras’s statements about her
abilities were also inconsistent with respect to the lay testimony offered, which the
ALJ discounted for germane reasons. Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th
Cir. 2006).
The ALJ’s finding that Comras’s residual functioning capacity reasonably
accounted for all the limitations in her ability to perform work-related activities is
supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record. Molina v. Astrue, 674
F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
3