L. THOMAS V. CAROLYN COLVIN, No. 13-36162 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT L. MONEKE THOMAS, No. 13-36162 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00572-JPD v. MEMORANDUM* CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James P. Donohue II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted January 26, 2015 Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Larreteyer Moneke Thomas appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We review the district court’s order de novo, and may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) findings “if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.” Id. at 1111. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Thomas’s contention that the ALJ erred in affording little weight to Dr. Connell’s opinion regarding her social functioning lacks merit. The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for the assessment of Dr. Connell’s opinion. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). Thomas’s contention that the ALJ erred in finding that Thomas’s allegations regarding her mental impairments were not credible also lacks merit. The ALJ offered specific, clear and convincing reasons for finding Thomas not credible in light of her daily activities, her failure to follow treatment and the lack of objective support for her allegations. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED.
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.
