Daniel Honeycutt v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL HONEYCUTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15865
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01619-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
Allison Claire, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: M. MURPHY,*** GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
*** The Honorable Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Daniel Honeycutt appeals from an order, and corresponding judgment,
of the district court affirming a final decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”). See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Commissioner denied Honeycutt’s application for disability insurance.
See generally id. §§ 401–06. Honeycutt asserts that the Social Security
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly discounted both (1) his
subjective testimony about the severity of his symptoms; and (2) the
opinions of Reza Ehyai, M.D., and Michelina Regazzi, Ph.D.1
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a district court order affirming an ALJ’s denial of social security
benefits and “will disturb the denial of benefits only if the de cision contains
legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Lambert v. Saul,
980 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted).
1. Substantial evidence, coupled with specific, clear, and convincing
reasons, supports the ALJ’s decision to discount Honeycutt’s subjective
assessment of the intensity of his impairments. The ALJ found Honeycutt’s
1 Honeycutt also asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to find him
presumptively disabled at step three of the sequential disability analysis, see
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). We will not consider this issue because
Honeycutt did not adequately raise it below. Matney ex rel. Matney v.
Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992).

-- 2 of 5 --

3
conservative treatment, which consisted of medication and minimal therapy,
inconsistent with the standard of care and the degree of severity alleged.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) and (v). Given his access to resources,
the ALJ’s finding that Honeycutt’s limited treatment was not related to a
lack of insurance is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ also noted
that the objective and diagnostic findings did not support the degree of
limitation alleged. Id. § 404.1529(c)(2). Likewise, the ALJ relied on record
evidence demonstrating that Honeycutt’s symptoms were generally well -
controlled on medication. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding
that Honeycutt’s extensive and varied daily activities were inconsistent with
his subjective assessment of his work limitations. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Honeycutt
attempted, in a meeting with a treating physician, to misrepresent his
experiences at an administrative hearing, supporting the determination that
Honeycutt tends to exaggerate the severity of his symptoms.
2. Honeycutt asserts that the ALJ erred in completely discounting
Doctor Ehyai’s opinion and partially discounting Doctor Regazzi’s opinion.
The ALJ’s rejection, partial or whole, of the opinions of Doctors Ehyai and
Regazzi is accompanied by “specific and legitimate reasons that are
supported by substantial evidence.” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654

-- 3 of 5 --

4
(9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted) (setting out the standard for
disability-benefit applications that, like Honeycutt’s, were filed before
March 27, 2017).
The ALJ offered numerous appropriate justifications for discounting
Doctor Ehyai’s opinion. The ALJ found that Doctor Ehyai’s treatment notes
primarily summarized Honeycutt’s subjective complaints without
documenting significant objective findings. Given that the ALJ had
previously discounted Honeycutt’s subjective assessments of his disability,
the ALJ was entitled likewise to discount Doctor Ehyai’s opinion. See
Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). Furthermore,
the ALJ concluded that Doctor Ehyai’s opinion of disability was at odds
with (1) the doctor’s own opinion, reflected in treatment notes, as to the
effectiveness of medication in dealing with Honeycutt’s symptom s; (2) the
conservative treatment regime undertaken by Honeycutt; and (3)
Honeycutt’s extensive and varied daily activities. See Rollins v. Massanari,
261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035,
1041 (9th Cir. 2008). Finally, the ALJ found indications that Honeycutt had
not been fully forthcoming with Doctor Ehyai. These specific justifications,
which are all supported by substantial evidence, are legitimate bases for
discounting Doctor Ehyai’s opinion.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
The ALJ did not err in partially rejecting the opinion of Doctor
Regazzi. The ALJ summarized Doctor Regazzi’s examination, noting that it
contained only two minimal positive findings. Otherwise, Honeycutt
reported performing significant daily activities and utilizing only
conservative treatment. Although the ALJ agreed with Doctor Regazzi that
Honeycutt was somewhat limited, the ALJ emphasized that Doctor
Regazzi’s own examination failed to support any marked limitations in
Honeycutt’s work-related functioning. Instead, the only thing supporting
such limits was Honeycutt’s “self-reported” description of his impairments.
Again, as noted above, the ALJ was entitled to discount such limits after
having found Honeycutt’s self-reported symptoms were exaggerated. See
Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1149.
AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --