THOMAS KENYON V. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 12-35685 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 13 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS KENYON, No. 12-35685 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01528-RE v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. 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.*** * 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. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.