NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALAN R. COLLIE, No. 19-15829
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01364-JDP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jeremy D. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 12, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Alan Collie appeals the district court’s order affirming the Administrative
Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision denying Collie’s application for disability insurance
benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the ALJ reasonably concluded
at step two of the sequential evaluation that Collie did not have a severe
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
impairment or combination of impairments, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of
Social Security benefits, and we must independently determine whether the ALJ’s
decision is free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence. Brewes v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012). “If the
evidence can support either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s conclusion, we may
not substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466
F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
1. First, Collie argues that the ALJ erred in discounting the opinions of
his treating physicians, Drs. Runte and Castleman. An ALJ may reject a treating
doctor’s contradicted opinion “by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are
supported by substantial evidence,” which can be done by “setting out a detailed
and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating [the
ALJ’s] interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d
648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Here, the ALJ found the opinions of
Drs. Runte and Castleman were inconsistent with the evidence of relatively stable
symptoms and clinical findings in the record, and Collie’s daily activities. These
are specific and legitimate reasons to discount a treating physician’s opinion.
See Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2020) (approving rejection of
treating physician’s opinion as inconsistent with the medical evidence and the
2
claimant’s activities). Collie urges the Court to adopt a different interpretation of
the evidence, but the ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. See Orn
v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007).
2. Second, Collie contends the ALJ improperly discredited his symptom
testimony. The ALJ reasonably relied on the evidence of Collie’s improvement
with medication, Collie’s daily activities, which were inconsistent with the specific
limitations he alleged, and the lack of supporting medical evidence to find Collie’s
symptom allegations were not entirely credible. These are specific, clear and
convincing reasons to discount his testimony. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d
1035, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that ALJ may discredit symptom testimony
where there is evidence of improvement with treatment); Rounds v. Comm’r Soc.
Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015) (indicating that inconsistency
between daily activities and testimony is a clear and convincing reason to discount
applicant’s testimony); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding
that ALJ may discredit symptom testimony that is inconsistent with the medical
evidence). While Collie again argues for a different interpretation of the evidence,
the ALJ’s interpretation is supported by substantial evidence. See Orn, 495 F.3d at
630.
3. Finally, Collie argues that the ALJ improperly discounted the lay
witness statements submitted by his wife and daughter. “An ALJ need only give
3
germane reasons for discrediting the testimony of lay witnesses.” Bayliss v.
Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). In concluding
that the statements submitted by Collie’s wife and daughter were not persuasive,
the ALJ separately found that their statements were both in conflict with the
medical evidence and inconsistent with Collie’s daily activities. These
justifications satisfy the “germane reasons” standard. See id. (“Inconsistency with
medical evidence” is a “germane reason[] for discrediting the testimony of lay
witnesses.” (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
4