FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 08 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANA KAY HAHN, No. 16-35797
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02034-JR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Jolie A. Russo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Lana Hahn appeals from the district court’s order affirming the decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security denying her applications for disability
*
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).
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, and social security
income under Title XVI.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district
court’s order affirming the denial of benefits de novo and will reverse the district
court only where the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) applied the wrong legal
standard or the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Tommasetti v.
Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence is more than “a
mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews v.
Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
I
The district court did not err in concluding that the ALJ properly found that
Hahn’s migraine headaches do not constitute a severe impairment. Accordingly,
the ALJ did not pose an incomplete hypothetical to the vocational expert (“VE”).
The ALJ considered all the symptoms alleged by Hahn, as well as the degree to
which the symptoms could be consistent with the objective medical evidence. The
MRI of Hahn’s brain returned normal results; the medical records demonstrate
Hahn’s symptoms are controlled through medication; and the frequency of the
migraines is not consistent.
2
Because the hypothetical posed to the VE included all the limitations the
ALJ found to be credible and supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ’s
reliance on the VE’s testimony was not improper. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d
1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2005). The ALJ properly omitted the evidence he
discounted, and did not provide an incomplete hypothetical to the VE. The ALJ’s
reliance on the VE’s testimony did not result in error.
II
The district court also properly concluded that the ALJ provided clear and
convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Hahn’s
testimony. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993). Inconsistencies
existed between Hahn’s reported daily activities, her alleged symptoms, and the
medical evidence. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996)
(inconsistencies between the claimant’s daily activities and reported limitations are
sufficient reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony). Although Hahn alleges
her symptoms are so severe that she is unable to independently perform any
activities of daily living or otherwise care for herself, Hahn reported she walks her
dog daily and exercises; she cared for three grandchildren for a period of 10 days
by herself; she cared for her sister; and she cared for her grandchildren while her
daughter was in the hospital. Further, medical records and treatment notes indicate
3
Hahn can perform all activities of daily living, and her overall functioning is
average. Hahn’s activity level and the medical evidence fail to corroborate the
severity of the symptoms alleged, and the ALJ provided sufficient reasons for
rejecting Hahn’s testimony. The ALJ did not err in rejecting Hahn’s testimony in
light of the inconsistencies between Hahn’s testimony, her reported activities, and
the objective medical evidence.
III
The district court properly determined that the ALJ had provided reasons
germane to each witness, supported by substantial evidence, to reject the lay
witness statements regarding Hahn’s limitations. Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919. The
ALJ identified inconsistencies between the lay witness statements, Hahn’s reported
activities, and the medical evidence, which are legally sufficient reasons to reject
lay witness testimony. Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155,
1164 (9th Cir. 2008). Both lay witnesses stated Hahn requires assistance to care
for herself and is unable to independently perform most activities of daily living.
However, Hahn’s reported activities contradict the lay witness testimony. Hahn
reported she has cared for others over extended periods of time independently, and
she regularly walks her dog and exercises. Further, the medical evidence indicates
Hahn’s overall functioning is average, and she is able to perform all activities of
4
daily living and instrumental daily living. The ALJ did not err in discounting the
lay witness testimony.
IV
The district court properly concluded that the ALJ gave sufficient reasons,
supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting the opinions of Dr. Afridi and Dr.
Voeller. Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216.
The ALJ disregarded Dr. Afridi’s opinions regarding Hahn’s inability to
stand on one leg for more than a few seconds and that Hahn was disabled and
required an additional bedroom because the opinions were brief, conclusory, and
inadequately supported by the medical findings. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d
947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). Dr. Afridi provided no explanation or clinical findings to
support his opinions, and the medical evidence does not support the opinions.
Such reasons are legally sufficient, and are supported by substantial evidence in the
record.
The ALJ discounted Dr. Voeller’s opinion that Hahn could only occasionally
reach in all directions other than overhead with her right arm because it was
inconsistent with Hahn’s reported symptoms, Dr. Voeller’s treatment notes, and
the medical evidence. Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041 (inconsistencies between the
record and a physician’s opinion are sufficient reasons to reject a medical opinion);
5
Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2009)
(contradictions between the physician’s opinion and his treatment notes are
sufficient reasons to reject a medical opinion.) Hahn did not report any pain or
difficulties using her right arm in any direction other than overhead, and Dr.
Voeller did not observe any such limitations on physical examination. Rather, Dr.
Voeller’s treatment notes indicate Hahn’s use of her right arm below shoulder level
was normal, and she put all her weight on her right outstretched arm when getting
on and off the exam table. The ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons for
discounting Dr. Voeller’s opinion, and the reasons are supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
V
The district court properly concluded that the ALJ did not commit error.
Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
6