Jerrie A. Archer v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERRIE A. ARCHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-35659
D.C. No. 6:12-cv-00767-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 5, 2015**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Jerrie A. Archer appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
FILED
OCT 07 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Social Security Act. 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 affirm.
1. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) provided specific, clear, and
convincing reasons for rejecting Archer’s subjective complaints, including her
daily activities, her failure to seek or comply with counseling treatment, failure to
take prescribed medication, and lack of supporting medical evidence. See Smolen
v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussing factors considered in
evaluating credibility).
2. In rejecting the testimony of Archer’s daughter, Sara Ball, the ALJ
provided reasons “germane to the witness” for doing so, by questioning Ball’s
ability to adequately observe Archer, and by noting that Ball’s testimony was
inconsistent with the medical evidence. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114 (reciting
standard); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing
inconsistency with medical evidence as a germane reason).
3. The ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions in determining
Archer’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and provided specific, clear, and
convincing reasons for rejecting certain medical opinions. Tommasetti v. Astrue,
533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (reciting standard); id. at 1038 (explaining
that this court will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when the evidence is susceptible to
2

-- 2 of 3 --

more than one rational interpretation). The ALJ properly rejected the opinions of
examining psychologist William Trueblood, Ph.D., examining physician Michael
Henderson, M.D., and a 2007 opinion by treating physician Nancy Maloney, M.D.,
because these opinions rested largely upon Archer’s discounted credibility and
were inconsistent with their own objective findings and the medical record.
4. Archer failed to establish any severe physical or mental impairments
beyond those found by the ALJ that would render the RFC determination
incomplete. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that a person with
Archer’s RFC can perform Archer’s past relevant work. See Molina, 674 F.3d at
1109-10.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --