FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 9 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD WHITMAN, Jr., No. 17-17302
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02481-SPL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020 **
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges
Richard Whitman, Jr., 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).
administrative decision for substantial evidence and legal error. Garrison v.
Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
Whitman argues that the nurse practitioner’s sit/stand limitation should have
been given deference and incorporated into the residual functional capacity
assessment. But, the ALJ properly applied the law when she assessed the nurse
practitioner’s opinion and provided germane reasons supported by substantial
evidence for giving little weight to the opinion. Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041,
1046 (9th Cir. 2017). The check-the-box opinion was inconsistent with treatment
notes and failed to sufficiently explain why Whitman’s back condition prevented
him from indefinitely working even one full day. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104,
1111-12 (9th Cir. 2012). Because the ALJ “permissibly discounted” the nurse
practitioner’s opinion, she was not required to incorporate the sit/stand limitation
into the residual functional capacity assessment. Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec.
Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004).
The ALJ did not abuse her discretion by denying counsel’s request to
subpoena the doctors who opined that Whitman could perform light work with
postural limitations. The light work opinions did not substantially contradict the
other medical assessments or treatment records. Solis v. Schweiker, 719 F.2d 301,
301-02 (9th Cir. 1983). Rather, the opinions were well-supported by objective
2
findings that were consistent with treatment records and the record as a whole.
The ALJ acted within her discretion when she found that the doctors’ testimony
was not reasonably necessary for the full presentation of the case.
The ALJ also provided specific, clear and convincing reasons supported by
substantial evidence for finding that Whitman was not entirely credible. Brown-
Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth the standard).
Whitman’s alleged limitations were inconsistent with his daily living activities, his
statements to his treating providers, and medical records documenting
improvement after treatment. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1016; Molina, 674 F.3d at
1112-13; Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir.
2008).
The ALJ properly assessed Whitman’s moderate social limitations by
limiting him to work that required no public contact and only occasional contact
with co-workers and supervisors. The mental health experts who reviewed
treatment records and Dr. Geary’s assessment translated the moderate social
limitations into the same limitations adopted by the ALJ. Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883
F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2017); Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169,
1174 (9th Cir. 2008).
3
The ALJ’s step five findings are supported by substantial evidence because
the ALJ incorporated the credible physical and mental limitations into the
questions posed to the vocational expert. Stubbs-Danielson, 539 F.3d at 1175-76.
AFFIRMED.
4