JOE LESTER, Jr. v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOE LESTER, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-35425
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05487-JRC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
J. Richard Creatura, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Joe Wayne Lester Jr. challenges the district court’s decision affirming the
Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his applications for disability insurance
FILED
MAY 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and affirm.
Substantial evidence supports the determination by the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) that Lester has a residual functional capacity (RFC) of light work with
certain limitations. The ALJ identified specific and legitimate reasons to not give
full weight to the opinions of non-examining physicians Dr. Baylor and Dr. Palasi,
which include inconsistencies with the opinion of an examining physician, Dr.
Sethi, Lester’s physical examination records, Lester’s conservative treatment, and
Dr. Palasi’s conclusory opinion. See Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 495–96 (9th
Cir. 2022); Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2020); Rollins v.
Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001); Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 253
(9th Cir. 1996). That Dr. Palasi has a professional duty to provide accurate
assessments does not undermine the ALJ’s specific and legitimate reasons for
discounting her opinion.
The ALJ identified germane reasons to discount the opinion of nurse
practitioner Oman, namely inconsistencies with Dr. Sethi’s report, Oman’s
examination reports, and Lester’s daily activities. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d
1104, 1111–12 (9th Cir. 2012); Coleman v. Saul, 979 F.3d 751, 757 (9th Cir.
2020).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Nor did the ALJ err in discounting Dr. Baylor and Oman’s opinions
regarding Lester’s functional limitations, despite their medical expertise, because
an RFC determination is “reserved to the Commissioner” and is not a medical
opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).
The ALJ identified specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject Lester’s
“statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms,”
which include inconsistencies with Lester’s physical examination records and
conservative treatment, which Lester does not challenge on appeal. See Molina,
674 F.3d at 1113; Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750–51 (9th Cir. 2007); Smartt,
53 F.4th at 497–98, 500. Contrary to Lester’s contention, the ALJ did address and
properly disregard Lester’s testimony about medication side effects because it was
inconsistent with Dr. Sethi’s examination report.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --