FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOANN RUIZ, No. 11-16162
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-02087-GSA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 7, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: FARRIS, NOONAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Joann Ruiz applied for Supplemental Security Income alleging disability
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-83(f). The ALJ deciding her case denied her claim,
and the Appeals Council denied review. The district court granted summary
judgment for the Commissioner. Ruiz now appeals. This court reviews de novo the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. See Edlund v.
Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The facts are known to the parties. Ruiz raises two issues on appeal. First,
she argues that the ALJ erred by rejecting the opinion of an examining doctor in
favor of a nonexamining doctor. Second, she argues that the ALJ erred by rejecting
the subjective testimony offered by Ruiz and another third party. A third issue
alleging error in the ALJ’s application of the grids was withdrawn by Ruiz at oral
argument.
To reject the opinion of an examining, nontreating doctor in favor of a
contradicting, nonexamining, and nontreating doctor, the ALJ must provide
specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial record evidence.
See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 1995). Ruiz argues that
only independent clinical evidence can form the specific and legitimate reasons
necessary to make such a finding. This is incorrect. Other types of evidence satisfy
the burden. See, e.g., id. at 1043. The ALJ gave five reasons: (1) Ruiz’s serial work
history, (2) her positive work performance, (3) her demonstrated ability to interact
with others, (4) her ongoing social relations, and (5) the uncontroverted fact that
the examining doctor did not have access to Ruiz’s full medical records. Ruiz
concedes the first four findings by not addressing them before the court. Because
2
the nonexamining doctor accepted nearly the entirety of the examining doctor’s
report, the only matter before this court relates to the examining doctor’s
conclusion that Ruiz is unable to maintain gainful employment. Here, the ALJ met
his burden.
On the second issue, the ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons to
reject Ruiz’s testimony. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995).
The ALJ gave nine reasons: (1) Ruiz’s mobility in her arms and legs that
contradicts her testimony, (2) her cancellation of a liver biopsy, (3) her failure to
provide medical records from Kern Medical Center, (4) her failure to provide
medical records to substantiate her alleged falls and difficulty walking, (5) her
neurological reports that contradict portions of her testimony, (6) her failure to
attend medically recommended alcohol treatment classes, (7) her unremarkable
mental exam results, (8) her ongoing social relations that contradict her assertion of
social isolation, and (9) her improvement from antidepressant therapy. Here too,
Ruiz limits her argument on appeal. Her only challenge relates to the ALJ’s
conclusions regarding the severity of her mental illness. Assuming arguendo that
Ruiz is correct on this matter, the ALJ could still make an adverse credibility
determination from the remaining findings that would color all of her testimony.
AFFIRMED.
3