Eddie Lee Knuckles v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDDIE LEE KNUCKLES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-35398

D.C. No. 6:16-cv-02197-AA

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 6, 2020
**

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Eddie Lee Knuckles appeals the district court’s affirmance of the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. §

*
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 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-35398
405(g). We review de novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016),
and we affirm.
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial
evidence to give only “little weight” to the opinions of Dr. Hughes. See Trevizo v.
Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017). The ALJ discounted the opinions of
Dr. Hughes as to both psychological and physical limitations because he found
them inconsistent with Dr. Hughes’s own treatment notes and other objective
medical evidence. See Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685,
692-93 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that a conflict with treatment notes is a specific
and legitimate reason to reject treating physician’s opinion).
The ALJ gave a germane reason supported by substantial evidence for
discounting the opinion of counselor Ludwig as to psychological limitations by
finding the limitations inconsistent with Ludwig’s own objective findings which
showed Knuckles as cooperative and displaying normal thought processes,
intellectual functioning, cognition, and memory. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d
1104, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a conflict between an opinion and
earlier assessment is a germane reason for discounting opinion).
The ALJ’s formulation of the residual functional capacity (RFC) adequately
accounted for Knuckles’s mental limitations. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539
F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008).

3 18-35398
The ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting
Knuckles’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms, including
inconsistency with the objective medical evidence and inconsistency with the level
of treatment sought. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)
(“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is
not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still
a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling
effects.”); see also Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ
may use “ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation” including “unexplained or
inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of
treatment.”).
The ALJ did not err in giving only “some weight” to Ward’s and Humbles’s
lay witness testimony. The ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons for
discounting Knuckles’s symptom testimony and those reasons apply with equal
force to his similar lay witness evidence.
Lastly, the ALJ did not err at Step 5 either in his formulation of the
hypothetical question to the vocational expert, or by including mail sorter in the jobs
Knuckles could perform. As to formulation of the RFC and hypothetical question,
the ALJ is not required to incorporate opinion evidence that was previously
permissibly discounted. Batson v. Commissioner, 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir.

4 18-35398
2004). As to Step 5, the ALJ’s error in including mail sorter as a position Knuckles
could perform was harmless because the ALJ also found Knuckles could perform
the jobs of price marker and laundry sorter and those jobs exist in significant
numbers in the national economy. See Gutierrez v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519,
528 (9th Cir. 2014) (25,000 jobs in national economy constitute significant
numbers).
AFFIRMED.