The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral… v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michelle H. Burns, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2019**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Martha Anita Tristan appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Tristan’s application for
disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We review
de novo, Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.
* 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).
MARTHA ANITA TRISTAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-16098
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02168-MHB
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
FEB 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-16098
The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons to discredit Tristan’s
testimony as to extreme limitations resulting from pain: inconsistency between the
alleged limitations and Tristan’s activities, and lack of support from relatively mild
clinical findings. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining
that inconsistency between activities and testimony is a clear and convincing
reason to discredit testimony); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir.
2005) (“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 properly gave germane reasons to reject Ms. Finney’s opinions.
See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the ALJ
is required to provide germane reasons to reject opinions from non-acceptable
medical sources). First, Ms. Finney’s opinions were in a checklist format and
unsupported by clinical findings. See id. (concluding that lack of support by
clinical findings is a germane reason to reject a checkbox opinion). Second, Ms.
Finney’s opinions were inconsistent with her own treatment notes showing
improvement with treatment, as well as with psychiatric clinical findings of other
treating sources. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005)
(inconsistency with medical evidence is a germane reason to reject lay witness
testimony).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-16098
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons to reject Dr. Posner’s
opinion: inconsistency with Tristan’s activities and lack of support by clinical
findings. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining
that a conflict with daily activities is a specific and legitimate reason to reject a
treating physician’s opinion); Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d
1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that the ALJ properly rejected a checklist
format treating physician opinion that was unsupported by clinical findings). The
ALJ properly rejected Dr. Posner’s opinion that Tristan was unable to work as an
opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. See Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d
1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the ALJ is not bound by conclusory
statements as to the ultimate issue of disability). Contrary to Tristan’s contention,
the ALJ appears to have reasonably considered the factors listed in 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1527(c).
The ALJ properly weighed the remaining medical evidence, including Dr.
Schenk’s opinion, and the ALJ’s conclusions are supported by substantial
evidence. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008)
(explaining that where medical evidence is in dispute, “the ALJ is the final arbiter
with respect to resolving ambiguities.”).
Tristan’s request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 8) is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --