Ashley M. Clevenger v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASHLEY M. CLEVENGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-35774
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00553-TOR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 27, 2014**
Before: D. NELSON, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Ashley M. Clevenger appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Clevenger’s application for
Disability Insurance Income and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and
FILED
JUL 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 --

XVI of the Social Security Act. Clevenger contends that the Administrative Law
judge (“ALJ”) failed to set forth specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the
opinion of her treating psychologist, Dr. John Arnold. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court’s decision de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d
1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not
supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id.
A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to substantial weight in social
security proceedings. Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228
(9th Cir. 2009). “When presented with conflicting medical opinions, the ALJ must
determine credibility and resolve the conflict.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). If an ALJ rejects a treating
physician’s opinion that is contradicted by another doctor, he must provide
specific, legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence in the record. Valentine
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692 (9th Cir. 2009).
The ALJ properly discounted the opinion of treating psychologist Dr.
Arnold because his opinion was inconsistent with Clevenger’s activities and the
other medical evidence in the record. First, the ALJ properly concluded that Dr.
Arnold’s opinion was inconsistent with Clevenger’s activities, which included
13-35774 2

-- 2 of 3 --

successfully living and working with others. Second, the ALJ properly concluded
that Dr. Arnold’s opinion conflicted with the opinions of examining psychologist
Samantha Chandler, Psy.D. and State reviewing experts Rita Flanagan, Ph.D., and
Mary Gentile, Ph.D. In contrast to Dr. Arnold’s conclusion that Clevenger had
marked limitations in learning new tasks and interacting with others, each of these
medical witnesses found that Clevenger could follow simple instructions and
interact at least superficially with others in the workplace. Therefore, the ALJ
provided specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Arnold’s opinion. See
Valentine, 574 F.3d at 692.
AFFIRMED.
13-35774 3

-- 3 of 3 --