Ryan Lee Pierce v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYAN LEE PIERCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-35387
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05384-MAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Mary Alice Theiler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 13, 2023
Seattle, Washington
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ryan Lee Pierce appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we review de novo the district court’s order. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d
1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). We may set aside the ALJ’s denial of benefits “only if
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
AUG 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based in legal error.” Smartt v.
Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 494 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
1. The ALJ did not err by giving “minimal weight” to the examination findings
and assessments of state agency physicians Dr. Neims, Dr. Wheeler, Dr. Krueger,
Dr. Eisenhauer, and Dr. Ruddell. The ALJ analyzed each state agency physician’s
opinion separately, but ultimately gave them less weight for the same reasons: that
they appeared to lack an objective basis and were inconsistent with Pierce’s
medical record as a whole. These reasons were “specific and legitimate” and
supported by substantial evidence. See Smartt, 53 F.4th at 494. The ALJ
explained that the state agency physicians seemed to rest their findings largely on
Pierce’s subjective reports, which the ALJ found to be unreliable because of
Pierce’s “disability conviction.” Their opinions were also inconsistent with the
opinions of the treating physicians who saw Pierce more regularly throughout the
2000s and 2010s. Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the
record as a whole, the more weight the ALJ gives to that medical opinion. See 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).
2. The ALJ also did not err by giving “minimal weight” to the statement of
Pierce’s physical therapist, Ms. Larsen, and to the statement of Pierce’s father.
Opinions of physical therapists are not entitled to the same deference as the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
opinions of providers within the definition of “acceptable medical sources,” but
ALJs must still give “germane” reasons for assigning less weight to or rejecting
their opinions. Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017); see 20
C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (f). The ALJ permissibly explained that she gave less
weight to Ms. Larsen’s opinion because it was expressly based on a single 30-
minute evaluation and relied heavily on the claimant’s subjective reporting of
symptoms. “An ALJ need only give germane reasons for discrediting the
testimony of lay witnesses. Inconsistency with medical evidence is one such
reason.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal
citation omitted). As with the state agency physicians, the ALJ gave less weight to
Pierce’s father’s statements because his statements were inconsistent with Pierce’s
medical record as a whole. Accordingly, the ALJ gave “germane reasons” for
giving less weight to Ms. Larsen’s and Pierce’s father’s statements.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --