GARY MEYER, Sr. v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY MEYER, Sr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-35727
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05381-MLP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 7, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: IKUTA and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.
FILED
DEC 12 2022
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).
*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Gary Meyer, Sr. (“Meyer”) 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 review the underlying decision
of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) only for legal error or lack of substantial
evidence. Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.
Because Meyer’s claim for benefits was filed before March 27, 2017, the Social
Security regulations and standards as propounded prior to the 2017 amendments apply
to this case. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.
1. The ALJ’s decision to assign low weight to the opinion of Dr. Robert
Barchiesi and substantial or great weight to the opinions of Drs. Derek Leinenbach,
J.D. Fitterer, and James Irwin is supported by substantial evidence. And the ALJ
offered specific and legitimate reasons for making the respective weight
determinations when he compared the physicians’ conclusions with their clinical
findings and other evidence in the record, including Meyer’s reported activities.
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (“An ALJ can satisfy the
‘substantial evidence’ requirement by ‘setting out a detailed and thorough summary
of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and
making findings.’” (quoting Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998)));
see also Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1155 (9th Cir. 2020) (“A conflict between a
2

-- 2 of 3 --

treating physician’s opinion and a claimant’s activity level is a specific and legitimate
reason for rejecting the opinion.”).
2. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to assign low weight to
Meyer’s testimony. The ALJ discussed in detail several inconsistencies between that
testimony and the record before the Commissioner, including the medical evidence
presented to the Commissioner, Meyer’s reported activities, and the lack of medical
evidence supporting Meyer’s stated need for a cane to balance. Light v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750–51
(9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --