Thomas J. Sayer v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS J. SAYER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-35246
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05125-MLP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 15, 2022***
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,**** Judge.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
**** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-35246
Thomas J. Sayer appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social
Security Administration’s denial of Title II disability benefits. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court order de novo and the
administrative decision for substantial evidence and legal error. Garrison v. Colvin,
759 F.3d 995, 1009–10 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
Sayer’s primary contention on appeal is that the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) impermissibly discounted his testimony regarding the severity of his
symptoms and physical limitations. The ALJ explained that Sayer’s testimony
regarding his physical limitations was inconsistent with his reported activities,
including playing video games, going to the grocery store, walking a quarter of a
mile with the goal of walking further, taking extended drives, and helping put away
laundry. The ALJ also discussed inconsistencies between Sayer’s testimony and his
medical records, including statements regarding his progress made to providers.
The ALJ’s reasons are specific, clear, convincing, and supported by substantial
evidence. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112–14 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding
that inconsistent statements, medical evidence, and daily living activities may
provide clear and convincing reasons to reject subjective symptom testimony).
Because the ALJ permissibly weighed Sayer’s testimony, Sayer’s challenges to the
ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination likewise fail. Cf. Ford v. Saul, 950

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-35246
F.3d 1141, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2020) (challenge to ALJ’s listing determination failed
where argument relied on medical evidence properly rejected or discounted by ALJ).
Sayer also argues that the ALJ erred by finding he did not have a severe mental
limitation. The ALJ reasonably interpreted the evidence, including the Dr. Lee’s
consultative examination, and we defer to the ALJ’s finding. See Thomas v.
Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Where the evidence is susceptible to
more than one rational interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the
ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --