gno.law

Michelle Gill v. Michael Astrue

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-55344 · 2013-04-08 · Unpublished

Michelle A. GILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee

Area
other
Panel
Procter R. Hug, Jr. (author), Joseph J. Farris, Edward Leavy

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 08 2013

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHELLE A. GILL, No. 12-55344 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02309-DMS- NLS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of MEMORANDUM* Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2013** San Francisco, California Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Michelle A. Gill appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability * 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). insurance benefits under Title II of the 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 we affirm.

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) provided “specific, clear, and convincing reasons” for rejecting Gill’s testimony about the severity of her pain and the extent of her limitations. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113. In particular, the ALJ relied on Gill’s failure to pursue aggressive treatment for her pain, her daily activities, and the observations of examining physicians. See id. (explaining that “the ALJ may discredit a claimant’s testimony when the claimant reports participation in everyday activities indicating capacities that are transferable to a work setting”); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that, in evaluating credibility, the ALJ may consider the “observations of treating and examining physicians” and any “inadequately explained failure to seek treatment”).

The ALJ erred in disregarding Kerry Kevil’s lay witness testimony without comment. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114. That error was harmless, however, because Kevil’s testimony “described the same limitations as [Gill’s] own testimony, and the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting [Gill’s] testimony apply with equal force to the lay testimony.” Id. at 1122.

AFFIRMED.

2 12-55344

Cited by