Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10281442
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Govinda Heartsong v. Martin O'Malley
No. 10281442 · Decided November 21, 2024
No. 10281442·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 21, 2024
Citation
No. 10281442
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GOVINDA R. HEARTSONG, No. 23-35581
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:23-cv-05024-BAT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARTIN J. O'MALLEY, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2024**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, H.A. THOMAS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Govinda Heartsong appeals the district court’s order affirming an
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s order affirming a denial of Social
Security benefits. Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 653–54 (9th Cir. 2017). We
may reverse a denial of benefits only when the decision is “based on legal error or
not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Id. at 654 (quoting Benton ex.
rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003)).
1. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that the opinions of
physician assistant (“PA”) Omar Gonzalez and Dr. Terilee Wingate were
“unsupported and inconsistent with the overall record.” Under the applicable
regulations, the ALJ’s opinion must reflect how the ALJ “considered the
supportability and consistency factors” in rejecting an examining doctor’s medical
opinion. Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2022); 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520c(a)–(b). Here, the ALJ relied on medical opinions that contradicted the
opinions of PA Gonzalez and Dr. Wingate. The ALJ found the opinions of Dr.
Howard Platter and Dr. John Gilbert to be supported by and consistent with
Heartsong’s longitudinal medical record. The ALJ relied on Dr. Platter’s testimony
that Heartsong was capable of performing a range of work activity at the light
exertional level, with additional postural, environmental, and manipulative
limitations. And the ALJ explained that Dr. Wingate’s opinion was inconsistent
with Heartsong’s longitudinal medical record, which showed that her mental health
2
symptoms improved with treatment. “Where evidence is susceptible to more than
one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.” Burch
v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). We find no error in the ALJ’s
treatment of the record here.
2. The ALJ provided “specific, clear, and convincing reasons” for
discrediting Heartsong’s subjective symptom testimony. Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53
F.4th 489, 494 (9th Cir. 2022) (“When objective medical evidence is inconsistent
with a claimant's subjective testimony, an ALJ can ‘reject the claimant’s testimony
about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear, and convincing
reasons for doing so.’”). The ALJ explained that Heartsong’s testimony as to her
symptoms was “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other
evidence in the record.” The ALJ pointed to PA Gonzalez’s physical examination
findings, which included a finding that Heartsong had normal motor strength and
gait. The ALJ also noted the testimony of Dr. Platter that Heartsong “could
perform a range of work activity at the light exertional level, with additional
postural, environmental, and manipulative limitations.” To the extent the ALJ may
have erred by inadequately explaining why Heartsong’s daily activities were
inconsistent with Heartsong’s subjective symptom testimony, any such error was
harmless, as it was “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.”
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded on other
3
grounds by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a).
AFFIRMED.
4
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024 MOLLY C.
02O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
03Govinda Heartsong appeals the district court’s order affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
04We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Govinda Heartsong v. Martin O'Malley in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 21, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10281442 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.