Scott Brodie v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for***
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT BRODIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-16121
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02338-CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig M. Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 7, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge.***
FILED
NOV 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Plaintiff-Appellant Scott Brodie appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. As the facts and procedural
history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to
explain our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Brodie may not re-litigate his prior claims for benefits, including claims this
court has previously denied. “Under applicable regulations, Brodie [is] required to
request a reopening of the ALJ’s decision directly from the Appeals Council within
twelve months of the Council’s denial of review of that application.” Brodie v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 267 F. App’x 662, 664 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 20 C.F.R. §
416.1488. Brodie has not requested the reopening of any prior ALJ decision and is
thus foreclosed from re-litigating those claims now.
The ALJ did not err in determining that Brodie’s syncope and seizures did
not equal listed impairments 11.02 or 11.03 for convulsive and non-convulsive
epilepsy. Brodie does not meet either listing requirement because he failed to
show that he underwent three months of prescribed treatment without success, or
that his seizures followed a “typical seizure pattern.” See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt.
P., App. 1, Listings 11.02, 11.03.
Brodie’s assertion that the ALJ failed to comply with the Appeals Council’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
order on remand is belied by the ALJ’s decision, which reveals sufficient
consideration of Brodie’s obesity, mental impairment, and whether his past work
as a security guard constituted relevant work.
Finally, we reject Brodie’s contention that the ALJ, in assessing Brodie’s
residual functioning capacity, gave insufficient consideration to the severity of his
syncope and seizures, as well as his mental impairments, obesity, and sleep apnea.
The ALJ compared the extensive record evidence and opinions regarding Brodie’s
seizures and syncope, to his subjective complaints. Although the ALJ did not
doubt Brodie’s diagnoses of seizures or syncope, he found that Brodie's claims
regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not
supported by the evidence. Where, as here, the evidence reasonably supports the
ALJ’s decision, we must defer to the ALJ's credibility determinations.
Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). Additionally,
the ALJ did not err in rejecting Brodie’s claims of mental impairment, obesity, or
sleep apnea because Brodie failed to show that these symptoms impeded his ability
to work or exacerbated his seizures or syncope.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --