Robin Lynn Birdsong Vincent v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBIN LYNN BIRDSONG VINCENT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-15941
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00926-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kendall J. Newman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: CALLAHAN and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,*** District
Judge.
* 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 Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Robin Lynn Birdsong Vincent appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance
benefits. “We review the district court’s order affirming the [Administrative Law
Judge]’s denial of social security benefits de novo and will disturb the denial of
benefits only if the decision contains legal error or is not supported by substantial
evidence.” Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020) (simplified). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vincent argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by finding
that her mental impairments (generalized anxiety disorder and depression) were not
severe as defined by the Social Security Act. In particular, she argues that the ALJ
erred by rejecting the medical opinions of Drs. Covery and Caruso-Radin, who
opined that Vincent should be limited to simple work.
The ALJ did not err when rejecting the medical opinions of Drs. Covery and
Caruso-Radin. As required by the latest Social Security regulations, see 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520c(b)(2), the ALJ explained his view of the consistency and supportability
of those medical opinions.1 As for consistency, he found that Covery’s and Caruso-
Radin’s proposed restrictions were inconsistent with the overall record, which
otherwise suggested that Vincent’s impairment was mild. He also noted that the
1 Although the ALJ’s language was arguably imprecise, his reasoning is readily
apparent. See Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 793 n.4 (9th Cir. 2022) (courts look
to determine whether “the ALJ’s meaning . . . is clear from context.”)

-- 2 of 4 --

3
opinions did not include some recent evidence that further suggested Vincent’s
impairments were non-severe. As for supportability, we find the ALJ’s statement
noting a lack of “actual mental status clinical findings” to refer to the absence of any
detailed rationale underlying their findings. See Batson v. Comm’r, 359 F.3d 1190,
1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding, under the previous set of regulations, an ALJ’s
rejection of conclusory medical opinions that were contradicted by other medical
evidence). Vincent’s arguments to the contrary are an invitation to reweigh the
evidence which we cannot accept. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th
Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,
it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.”)
With Dr. Covery and Caruso-Radin’s medical opinions discounted, the ALJ
had substantial evidence to conclude that Vincent’s mental impairments were non-
severe. The ALJ cited record evidence showing that Vincent was frequently in good
spirits, engaged, and progressing at her therapy sessions. The ALJ also considered
that Vincent sometimes failed to take her medication, suggesting that her
impairments were less severe than alleged. And the ALJ noted that Vincent was
able to work as an Uber driver until COVID-19 caused her to stop. He also
considered contrary testimony that Vincent was experiencing memory problems and
was sometimes tearful during therapy sessions. Although Vincent offers examples

-- 3 of 4 --

4
of evidence supporting her position, nothing in this record requires us to reverse the
ALJ’s decision.
The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --