George Karpinski v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE KARPINSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-36041
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00325-JRC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
J. Richard Creatura, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
George Karpinski appeals the district court’s affirmance of the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance
benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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
MAR 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review the district court’s denial de
novo and can reverse the ALJ’s decision only if her “findings are based on legal
error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Attmore v. Colvin,
827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The ALJ applied the requisite two-step framework and cited specific, clear,
and convincing reasons for discounting Karpinski’s testimony regarding his
physical impairments. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017).
The ALJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies in Karpinski’s statements, evidence
that Karpinski’s conditions were well controlled with medication, and a lack of
corroborating medical evidence. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2012); Warre v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.
2006); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005). While Karpinski
propounds an alternative interpretation of the medical evidence, the ALJ’s
interpretation is supported by substantial evidence. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d
625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007)
The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for assigning little weight to
treating physician Dr. Braun’s opinion that Karpinski’s “anxiety/depression,
diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis” preclude Karpinski from working “for the
foreseeable future.” The ALJ reasonably discounted the opinion because Dr. Braun
did not cite any objective signs, indicate which medical evidence he relied upon, or

-- 2 of 4 --

3
detail the limiting effect of Karpinski’s conditions. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427
F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). Contrary to Karpinski’s assertion, Dr. Braun’s
treatment notes do not contain any basis for his opinion that Karpinski will be
completely disabled for the foreseeable future and, thus, do not rectify the
conclusory nature of his opinion. Karpinski also asserts that the ALJ had a duty to
recontact Dr. Braun. However, the duty to recontact applies where a physician’s
report is ambiguous or insufficient for the ALJ to make a disability determination.
Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217. An ALJ has no duty to recontact where, as here, she
finds the evidence adequate to make a determination. Id. The ALJ’s finding that
the evidence was adequate to make a determination is supported by the record. See
id.
The ALJ also reasonably rejected Dr. Braun’s opinion because the record
indicated that Karpinski’s rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes were controlled with
medication. See Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)-(6)).
Because the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for assigning little
weight to Dr. Braun’s opinion, any error in the ALJ’s additional reasoning was
harmless. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115.
The ALJ provided specific, legitimate grounds supported by the record for
assigning little weight to the opinion of Dr. Magdaleno. The ALJ reasonably took
into account Dr. Magdaleno’s opinion that Karpinski’s limitations would last eight

-- 3 of 4 --

4
months, short of the twelve months necessary to establish eligibility for disability
benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(a). The ALJ also reasonably accorded Dr.
Magdaleno’s opinion less weight because she found that Karpinski’s condition
improved after the opinion was rendered.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --