The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRYSTAFER L. BROWN, No. 24-2748
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-05050-TLF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Theresa Lauren Fricke, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2025**
Portland, Oregon
Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Krystafer L. Brown appeals the district court’s judgment upholding the
Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. Brown had several
*
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).
medically determinable impairments, including fibromyalgia, a hip impingement,
and obesity, as well as depression and other mental impairments. She claimed she
was unable to stand or sit for prolonged periods, found it difficult to concentrate,
and suffered from severe anxiety and panic attacks.
Despite her claimed limitations, Brown consistently worked part-time, and
sometimes close to full-time, for extended periods, including as a caregiver,
cashier, and ride-share driver. She also engaged in a variety of activities involving
significant social interaction.
The ALJ found that Brown had a residual functional capacity to perform a
restricted range of light work and denied her applications at step five. Brown
principally maintains that the ALJ erroneously rejected her testimony and that of
her cousin and improperly evaluated the medical evidence. Her contentions are
largely conclusory, however. The ALJ’s determination did not rest on legal error,
and it is supported by substantial evidence. See Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785,
788 (9th Cir. 2022).
As the district court observed, the ALJ’s analysis was not perfect.
Nevertheless, the ALJ offered “specific, clear and convincing” reasons for
rejecting Brown’s testimony regarding the degree of her limitations. Ferguson v.
O’Malley, 95 F.4th 1194, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). Brown made
statements that undermined her credibility, see Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273,
2 24-2748
1284 (9th Cir. 1996), and her testimony conflicted with evidence of her work
history and of the effectiveness of medications and therapy in controlling her
mental symptoms, see Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499–500 (9th Cir. 2022);
Kitchen v. Kijakazi, 82 F.4th 732, 739 (9th Cir. 2023). Her cousin testified that
Brown’s limitations were as debilitating as she claimed, and the ALJ properly
discounted that testimony for similar reasons. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec.
Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009). It was also proper for the ALJ to assign
less weight to medical opinions that Brown now highlights because those opinions
conflicted with the referenced evidence and other medical opinions. See Ford v.
Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2020).
Brown has therefore not established that the ALJ failed to account for any
limitations in determining her residual functional capacity. The ALJ found Brown
could perform simple, light work in two-hour segments with limited public
interaction. This finding accounts for her physical symptoms, social difficulties,
and inability to meet high production demands. Brown has identified no basis for a
remand to award benefits.
AFFIRMED.
3 24-2748