Teresa Chipman v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERESA CHIPMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-35797
No. 3:16-CV-01856-BR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 27, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Teresa Jeanne Chipman appeals pro se the district court’s affirmance of the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo,
* 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).
FILED
MAR 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
The ALJ did not err in applying the “closely approaching advanced age”
category at Step Five of the sequential analysis. Although Chipman would attain
“advanced age” within months of the hearing before the ALJ, the ALJ was not
required to use this category when considering Chipman’s application. See
Lockwood v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2010).
Rather, the ALJ was required to “consider whether to use the older age category
after evaluating the overall impact of all the factors of [Chipman’s] case.” 20
C.F.R. § 404.1563(b). The ALJ fulfilled this obligation by acknowledging
Chipman was in the borderline range for these age categories and “note[d] that the
vocational expert identified at the hearing that the claimant has transferable skills
from her past relevant work to other jobs,” thus considering the effect of the other
factors included in the grids. See id. Because Chipman had transferable skills, the
ALJ would have found her “not disabled” under the grids whether she was
classified as a person of advanced age or closely approaching advanced age. See 20
C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Table No. 2; Lockwood, 616 F.3d at 1071-72. The
ALJ was not required to make any additional findings concerning why she
declined to evaluate Chipman under the advanced age category. See Lockwood,
616 F.3d at 1073.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting
Chipman’s testimony, including evidence that she left her last position for reasons
unrelated to her medical conditions, a lack of supporting objective medical
evidence, and inconsistencies between her alleged limitations and daily activities.
See Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2001); Bray v. Comm’r Soc.
Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d
1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). In relying on Chipman’s daily activities as grounds for
discounting her testimony, the ALJ was not required to find those activities were
comparable to activities performed during full-time working. While an ALJ “may
discredit a claimant's testimony when the claimant reports participation in
everyday activities indicating capacities that are transferable to a work setting,” an
ALJ may also discredit claimant testimony based on daily activities “to the extent
that they contradict claims of a totally debilitating impairment,” even if “those
activities suggest some difficulty functioning.” See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113
(citations omitted). Any error by the ALJ in citing Chipman’s receipt of
unemployment benefits as grounds to reject her testimony was harmless in light of
the other clear and convincing reasons the ALJ provided. See Carmickle v.
Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 2008).
The ALJ did not err in assigning little weight to the controverted opinion of
Chipman’s treating physician, Dr. Machado. The ALJ provided specific and

-- 3 of 4 --

4
legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence, including inconsistencies
between the opinion and the objective medical evidence, as well as inconsistencies
between the opinion and Chipman’s daily activities. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871
F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017). Chipman cites to X-ray results indicating she has
arthritis, presumably to argue that this evidence supports Dr. Machado’s opinion
concerning the extent of her limitations. But this evidence does not show the ALJ
erred. It is the province of the ALJ to resolve conflicting medical evidence, and
when evidence lends itself to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s
decision should be upheld. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041-42 (9th
Cir. 2008); Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008).
Because an ALJ need not accept the opinion of a treating physician that lacks
support from clinical findings, Chipman has not demonstrated the ALJ erred. See
Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001).
To the extent Chipman seeks to raise additional issues not presented to the
district court, those issues are waived. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973
(9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --