Kevin J. Stainbrook v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN J. STAINBROOK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-36025
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-06185-MLP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 9, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
This appeal arises from the denial of Appellant Kevin Stainbrook’s
Application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI Application”). The
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) affirmed
* 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
DEC 7 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
the denial of Appellant’s SSI Application after the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) found that Appellant was not disabled. Specifically, the ALJ found that
Appellant was not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act
because, even considering Appellant’s impairments, Appellant was capable of
making a successful adjustment to other work that existed in the national economy
in significant numbers. Appellant requested reconsideration which was also
denied. Thereafter, Appellant filed a civil suit in the District Court for the Western
District of Washington, seeking judicial review of the ALJ’s decision. The district
court entered an Order affirming the ALJ’s decision, denying SSI benefits. Now,
Appellant challenges the district court’s decision alleging error.
We review the district court’s judgment affirming the ALJ’s denial of SSI
benefits de novo, Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008), “and
reverse only if the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the
record as a whole or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard.” Molina v.
Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2012).
First, Appellant argues that the ALJ erred by failing to properly evaluate the
medical evidence and medical opinions in the record. The record does not support
this conclusion. The ALJ properly analyzed the medical opinions in the record,
weighed them, and properly disregarded only any medical opinion that was not
supported by the objective medical evidence. The ALJ “may disregard a medical

-- 2 of 3 --

3
opinion . . . inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Britton v. Colvin, 787 F.3d
1011, 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
Next, Appellant argues that the ALJ erred by discounting Appellant’s
subjective pain testimony. The ALJ discounted Appellant’s testimony because it
was not consistent with Appellant’s activities of daily living, and the objective
medical evidence in the record. Appellant’s testimony is contradicted by numerous
x-rays and medical opinions indicating that Appellant’s symptoms have stabilized.
“Contradiction with the medical record is a sufficient basis for rejecting the
claimant’s subjective testimony.” Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533
F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008).
Lastly, Appellant argues that his residual functioning capacity (“RFC”)
assessment was determined incorrectly because it did not account for the opinions
of two individuals, Dr. Donlon and Ms. Williams. Appellant’s RFC assessment
argument is premised on the asserted impropriety of the ALJ’s decision to discount
the opinions of Dr. Donlon and Ms. Williams. This argument is not persuasive
because we hold that the ALJ’s decision to discount the opinions of Dr. Donlon and
Ms. Williams was proper and supported by the objective medical record.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --