Vince Blakely v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINCE BLAKELY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-35402
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05168-EFS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 5, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Vince Blakely appeals the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of
benefits. Blakely asserted disability based on hearing defects, obsessive
compulsive disorder, anxiety, depression, and mood swings.
FILED
JUN 7 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s rejection of Licensed Medical
Health Counselor Mr. Shepley’s opinions as to Blakely’s disabilities because they
were not consistent with or supported by the evidence in the record. The ALJ
properly relied on the testimony of Drs. Buitrago and Bruner, and Blakely has
failed to show that any error was consequential to the ALJ’s ultimate decision.
The ALJ reasonably interpreted the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
(“DVR”) reports within the context of the record to conclude that Blakely’s lack of
success with DVR services was likely due to his own choices and that the DVR
records tended to undermine some of Blakely’s symptom reports and medical
opinions. Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s clear and convincing
reasons for discounting Blakely’s symptom reports, most notably that some of
Blakely’s testimony was inconsistent with his own prior statements and other
evidence.
Blakely has failed to show reversible error in steps one or two. At step one,
the ALJ made clear that for much of the period of time at issue Blakely was not
involved in substantial gainful activity, and thus did not deny Blakely’s claim.
Blakely fails to show consequential error at step two. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400
F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2005).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, substantial evidence supports the finding that given Blakely’s
vocational factors and the testimony from a vocational expert, Blakely would be
able to work in other jobs existing in significant numbers.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --