Kristel S. Defrees v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISTEL S. DEFREES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-17122
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00339-DGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 20, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and SILVERMAN. Circuit Judges.
Kristel S. Defrees appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Defrees’s applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
FILED
MAR 27 2017
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 --

Social Security Act. Defrees contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
erred in giving little weight to the medical opinion of examining physician
Jonathan Murphy, M.D. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
the district court’s order de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.
2012), and we affirm.
As an initial matter, contrary to Defrees’s contention that Dr. Murphy’s
opinion was uncontradicted, Dr. Robert Quinones appears to have contradicted Dr.
Murphy when he disagreed with Dr. Murphy’s assessment and concluded that
Defrees was not disabled. Moreover, even if Dr. Murphy’s opinion is deemed
uncontradicted, the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting his opinion also meet the higher
“clear and convincing” standard. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.
1996).
First, the ALJ reasonably discounted Dr. Murphy’s opinion because his
finding of extreme fatigue and disability was inconsistent with his own clinical
findings. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.
2004) (ALJ may reject a doctor’s opinion if it is inconsistent with that doctor’s
clinical findings). Second, the ALJ reasonably found that Dr. Murphy’s exam
findings were inconsistent with other medical evidence, namely Nurse Dana
Rosdahl’s observations of Defrees. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041
15-17122 2

-- 2 of 3 --

(9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject a physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with
medical records). Although the ALJ improperly relied on Nurse Rosdahl’s
statement that Defrees had “found a doctor [Dr. Murphy] to sign off on her
disability paperwork . . . and he will sign off on everything,” see Lester, 81 F.3d at
832 (ALJ “may not assume that doctors routinely lie in order to help their patients
collect disability benefits”), this is harmless error because the ALJ proffered other
legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Murphy’s opinion, see Carmickle v.
Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
15-17122 3

-- 3 of 3 --