Chanel Epps 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 Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge for the U.S.***
District Court for Southern Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANEL EPPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-56776
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01380-WQH-
WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 9, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District
Judge.***
FILED
APR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Chanel Epps appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She argues that the
administrative law judge erred by ignoring the opinion of her treating psychiatrist.
We disagree. While the ALJ does not mention the treating psychiatrist by name,
he repeatedly cites and discusses the psychiatrist’s medical reports. Moreover, the
ALJ’s finding that Epps’s “symptoms appear to be adequately controlled with
prescribed treatment” is based upon and consistent with the treating psychiatrist’s
treatment records. Thus, the ALJ did not reject the treating physician’s ultimate
conclusions. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 831 (9th Cir. 1995). Substantial
evidence in the whole record supports the ALJ’s decision.
Epps also argues that the ALJ did not adequately analyze and present to the
vocational expert limitations deriving from Epps’s mental impairments. To the
extent the ALJ erred, such error was harmless. See Curry v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d
1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 1990). Although the ALJ did not present Epps’s alleged
mental impairments to the vocational expert, all the jobs identified by the expert
were unskilled and therefore consistent with Epps’s residual functional capacity.
Based on her psychiatrist’s conclusions, her mental impairments would not affect

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the vocational expert’s conclusion, because they were well controlled by
medication. Thus, no reasonable ALJ could have concluded that Epps could not
perform the jobs identified by the vocational expert. See Stout v. Comm’r, 454
F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --