The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-55796•Edith Nicole Bostwick v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
15-55796Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 13, 2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDITH NICOLE BOSTWICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-55796
D.C. No.
3:13-cv-01936-LAB-MDD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 9, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, NGUYEN, Circuit Judge, and AMON,*** District
Judge.
Edith Bostwick appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 13 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 4 --
2
Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that she did not qualify for
disability insurance benefits. At steps four and five of the sequential evaluation
process, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Bostwick could not
perform her past work as a sales representative, but could perform other work that
existed in significant numbers in the national economy and was therefore not
disabled. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
1. The ALJ properly weighed the medical evidence before concluding that
Bostwick had the residual functional capacity to perform light work. The ALJ
gave specific reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Dr.
Bronner’s opinion because it is inconsistent with the opinions of the examining
doctor, testifying medical expert, and two state medical consultants, as well as
inconsistent with the record. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th
Cir. 2001) (“When confronted with conflicting medical opinions, an ALJ need not
accept a treating physician’s opinion that is conclusory and brief and unsupported
by clinical findings.” (citing Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir.
1992))).
Substantial evidence also supported the ALJ’s decision to credit the
testimony of Dr. Jensen that Bostwick could perform light work, even with her
-- 2 of 4 --
3
limitations. Dr. Jensen’s testimony comported with the objective medical evidence
and with the opinions of the examining doctor and state medical consultants.
Although Bostwick argues that the ALJ needed to address Dr. Jensen’s off-the-
record comment, an ALJ need not discuss every single piece of evidence. See
Howard v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that “the ALJ
does not need to discuss every piece of evidence,” and the “ALJ is not required to
discuss evidence that is neither significant nor probative”) (citation and quotation
marks omitted).
2. The ALJ identified the specific testimony that he did not find credible:
Bostwick’s account of her limitations to the extent that her testimony was
inconsistent with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment. Her testimony
was inconsistent with the lack of evidence that she needed a hand-held assistive
device to walk, see Social Security Ruling 96-9p, the extent of her daily activities,
see Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1235 (9th Cir. 2010), and the testimony and
opinions of the medical experts, see Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59
(9th Cir. 2002).
3. Remand is unnecessary to consider the new letter that Bostwick
submitted to the Appeals Council. The conclusory letter from one of her treating
-- 3 of 4 --
4
physicians does not undermine the substantial evidence that supports the ALJ’s
decision. See Nyman v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Conclusory
opinions by medical experts regarding the ultimate question of disability are not
binding on the ALJ.” (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927)).
AFFIRMED.
-- 4 of 4 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.