Nathan R. Apilada v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHAN R. APILADA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-36100
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00898-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 5, 2021 **
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Nathan Apilada appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. This court reviews the
* 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
OCT 7 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-36100
district court’s order sustaining the denial of benefits de novo. Brown-Hunter v.
Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015). This court may set aside the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”)’s denial of benefits only if it is not supported by
substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id.
The ALJ adequately explained his findings concerning the opinions of the
state agency medical consultants Dr. Richard Alley and Dr. Nathaniel Arcega and
the findings concerning the limitations of Apilada’s left upper extremity (“LUE”).
First, the ALJ gave the opinions “significant weight” because they adequately
considered the claimant’s hearing and LUE, and the ALJ agreed with the
consultants’ conclusion that claimant was not disabled. Second, the ALJ noted that
the consultants’ opinions were “generally supported” by claimant’s work activity
and daily activities. Third, the ALJ adequately explained why he rejected the
consultants’ restrictions to occasional handling with the LUE in favor of a weight-
based restriction on handling with the LUE by recounting a history of Apilada’s left
arm and referencing the hearing record of Apilada lifting heavy stoves as part of his
current job. The ALJ reasonably concluded that Apilada could frequently handle 10
pounds and occasionally handle 20 pounds with his left hand. Shaibi v. Berryhill,
883 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that even though a claimant may argue
that an ALJ could have come to a different conclusion in weighing medical opinions,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-36100
the ALJ’s findings will be affirmed if they are rational and supported by substantial
evidence).
The ALJ properly explained his findings that Apilada had somewhat less
hearing limitation than indicated by Dr. Andrew Pedersen. Contrary to claimant’s
assertion that the ALJ offered an inadequate explanation for his finding on Apilada’s
hearing limitation, the ALJ devoted a paragraph of his decision to detailing a history
of Apilada’s hearing loss and Dr. Pedersen’s analysis. Based on those facts, the ALJ
restricted Apilada to work in a quiet office type work environment with no
background noise. This was a reasonable interpretation of Dr. Pedersen’s opinion,
in the context of the overall record, and entitled to deference. Shaibi, 883 F.3d at
1108. In addition, any error that resulted from the ALJ’s interpretation of Dr.
Pedersen’s opinion was harmless given the subsequent additional evidence of
Apilada’s improved hearing that was submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ
decision. Stout v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006)
(holding that any error is harmless where it is inconsequential to the ultimate non-
disability determination).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --