Toy L. Williams v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOY L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-35085
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05343-MAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Mary Alice Theiler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2019**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Toy L. Williams appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Williams’s application for
supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.
At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the administrative law judge
* 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
JUL 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 15-35085
(“ALJ”) determined that Williams could perform jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we
affirm.
The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for partially rejecting
Williams’s testimony by explaining that Williams’s reported activities were
inconsistent with her testimony regarding the severity of her impairments. See
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may consider a
claimant’s inconsistent statements in rejecting the claimant’s testimony); Thomas
v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ may consider a claimant’s
lack of substantial work history with respect to the claimant’s credibility regarding
her inability to work). The ALJ did not err in considering the lack of objective
medical evidence to support Williams’s assertions regarding the severity of her
limitations. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 681 (“Although lack of medical evidence
cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ
can consider in his credibility analysis.”).
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial
evidence, for assigning little weight to the contracted opinions of examining
sources Dr. Brown and Dr. Neims by stating that their opinions were based largely
on Williams’s non-credible self-reports and were inconsistent with the other

-- 2 of 4 --

3 15-35085
evaluations See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ
may reject a medical opinion that is based on a claimant’s self-reported
information where the ALJ has found the claimant non-credible); Bayliss v.
Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ need not accept an opinion
that is based on self-reported information that is inadequately supported by clinical
findings).
The ALJ provided germane reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for
partially rejecting the opinion of treating physician’s assistant Rachel McElvain
regarding Williams’s physical impairments by stating that McElvain’s opinion was
inconsistent with the medical evidence. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114 (ALJ must
give reasons that are germane to each witness to discount the opinions of non-
medical sources).
The ALJ provided germane reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for
partially rejecting the opinions of lay witnesses Debra Crane, Keith J. Hoppe, and
Lisa Martin by stating that their opinions were substantially similar to Williams’s
own testimony, which the ALJ found non-credible. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc.
Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009) (where an ALJ has properly
discounted a claimant’s testimony as non-credible, those reasons are germane for
rejecting similar lay witness testimony).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 15-35085
We do not consider any issues that Williams failed to specifically argue in
her opening brief. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 553 F.3d 1155,
1161 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (this court will not consider issues that are not specifically
and distinctly raised in the opening brief).
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --