Linh Thi Minh Tran v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LINH THI MINH TRAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-35307

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01971-HZ

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 4, 2020
**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Linh Thi Minh Tran appeals the district court’s affirmance of the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de

*
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).
FILED

MAY 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-35307
novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
1

Tran carries the initial burden of proving disability, including proving that
she has an impairment that meets or equals the criteria of a listed impairment.
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that Tran’s vision
impairment did not meet or equal Listing 2.02, 2.03, or 2.04. For an impairment to
meet a Listing, all of the criteria of that Listing must be satisfied for the requisite
durational period. Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (“For a claimant to
show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified
medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no
matter how severely, does not qualify.”).
Tran insists in this connection that her visual impairment in her left eye met
the Listings. However, the relevant inquiry under Listing 2.02, 2.03, and 2.04 is

1
Tran accuses the ALJ of making “intentional misrepresentations” in his
Decision, adding that the Decision was “made in bad faith” or “with intent to
deceive.” Because of the seriousness of these allegations, we have carefully
examined the record to determine if they have any support. They do not. To the
contrary, the claimant was at all times treated professionally and with respect and
courtesy, to the point of ensuring that a female security officer would be present to
attend to that aspect of the proceedings, and providing her with an interpreter even
though one was not requested. Moreover, the ALJ on his own motion suspended
the claimant’s hearing and continued the matter to enable her and her attorney to
gather missing medical records that appeared to be pertinent to her claim. Finally,
neither the transcript of her merits hearing nor the ALJ’s thorough, thoughtful, and
persuasive Decision itself reveal anything untoward.

3 18-35307
the impairment of vision in the “better eye,” in Tran’s case her right eye, not her
left. We elaborate.
Dr. Thuyet Tran, M.D./Ph. D, was the claimant’s primary care provider.
The ALJ correctly noted that “[d]uring general examinations in 2014 and 2015,”
“the claimant reported limited vision in the left eye only.” Reports from Dr. Shults
and Dr. Yang corroborate this statement. The results of an electroretinography
exam administered in Dr. Yang’s office were “inconsistent with light perception
due to retinal etiology.” Dr. Yang’s report also says that “she is not happy with her
job and this may have been a contributory factor in the development of the panic
attack at work today.”
Dr. Tran’s notes of May 30, 2015, place in question the reliability of the
claimant’s assertions about her vision, and also her cooperation with her medical
providers. Dr. Tran reports that the claimant “as usual is upset and storming out of
the room after she did not get her demand met,” referring to an MRI she wanted
which Dr. Tran believed to be unnecessary. This behavior was consistent with (1)
technician Rauch’s and Dr. Yang’s report of questionable cooperation on a full
field vision test, (2) Dr. Wei’s notation of an “uncooperative examination”, and (3)
Dr. Wei’s description of her as a “patient unsatisfied by my explanation.”
2

2
The ALJ, the government, and the district court misread the medical
record, asserting that Dr. Tran reported that the claimant “always exaggerated her
symptoms,” referencing Dr. Tran’s report at page 603 of the excerpt of record.

4 18-35307
The ALJ also highlighted the claimant’s suspect assertion that she did not
drive a car. On February 15, 2013, she reported in a Social Security Function
Report that she drove a car “when going out.” Asked directly “Do you drive?”, she
checked “yes.” Dr. Brian Pavic’s report indicates that the claimant “is able to
drive O.K., but the street signs and numbers are blurry, and as such, she rides the
bus a lot to her appointments and to work when she is working.” The ALJ also
correctly found that she had no limitations with respect to activities of daily living
or social functioning. In addition, he referenced information in an investigative
report dated September 4, 2015, that the claimant “has a number of videos on
YouTube. Most has (sic) her doing different daily tasks, but most if not all have
her at the computer typing and speaking to someone. She is not wearing glasses
nor have any other aid.” This report indicates that she confronts neighbors in
English and complains about parking problems in the neighborhood.
The ALJ reasonably evaluated the medical evidence, including information
from Dr. Holland, and the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Dr. Tran’s report says nothing about always exaggerating her symptoms.
What Dr. Tran’s report does say is that the claimant “is quite anxious. Always
exacerbates her symptoms.” (Emphasis added.) We read this language to indicate
that the claimant’s anxiety always exacerbates her symptoms. Other notes in the
record about the effects of the claimant’s anxiety and her symptoms confirm this
reading. However, we consider this error to be inconsequential in the light of the
full record.

5 18-35307
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Where the evidence is
susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which supports the
ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.”).
To the extent Tran argues that her other impairments, such as asthma, back
pain, and migraines meet the Listings, this argument also lacks merit. The ALJ
correctly observed that “[o]ther symptoms and complaints appear in the medical
treatment records periodically, but there is nothing to show that they are more than
transient or cause significant vocational limitations. Any such impairment is not a
severe medically determinable impairment because no objective, acceptable
medical documentation supports such a finding.” We agree with the district court
that the ALJ did not err in not addressing these alleged impairments at step three of
his analysis.
AFFIRMED.