Thomas Kenyon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS KENYON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-35685
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01528-RE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
James A. Redden, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 7, 2013**
Portland, Oregon
Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PRO, Senior District
Judge.***
FILED
NOV 13 2013
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).
*** The Honorable Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Thomas Kenyon appeals a district court judgment upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of an application for Social Security disability insurance
benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. Any error by the administrative law judge (ALJ) in not including the
simple one-two step instructions limitation in the hypothetical question to the
vocational expert was harmless. The vocational expert and ALJ identified an
occupation that Kenyon can perform—bindery-machine feeder—that exists in
significant numbers nationally or regionally. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d
1035, 1043–44 (9th Cir. 2008); Barker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 882
F.2d 1474, 1479 (9th Cir. 1989).
2. The ALJ did not improperly reject the opinions of Kenyon’s treating
physicians. The ALJ expressly noted that Kenyon’s physicians issued conflicting
medical reports and reconciled those inconsistencies. See Magallanes v. Bowen,
881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989).
3. The ALJ considered Kenyon’s headaches when assessing residual
functional capacity and properly discounted Kenyon’s statements about the
limiting effect of his migraines. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036
(9th Cir. 2007); Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --