Tia Rose v. Carolyn Colvin ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 29 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIA L. ROSE, No. 14-36044
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01954-BR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 25, 2016**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Tia L. Rose appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104,
1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in finding that Rose’s
testimony regarding her symptoms was not fully credible. The ALJ provided
specific, clear and convincing reasons for the credibility assessment, including
inconsistencies between Rose’s testimony regarding her limitations and her
activities, inconsistencies between Rose’s testimony and the medical evidence, and
Rose’s failure to seek or follow prescribed treatment. See id. at 1112-13 (ALJ can
reject claimant testimony about severity of symptoms by offering specific, clear
and convincing reasons).
The ALJ did not err in disregarding the limitations contained in John
Ellison, M.D.’s evaluation report after finding that Rose was not fully credible.
Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that the limitations in Dr.
Ellison’s report reflected Rose’s self-reported history which the ALJ properly
found not fully credible. See id. at 1111.
The ALJ did not err by discounting Judy Bain’s lay witness report. The ALJ
provided a germane reason for discounting Bain’s report because it conflicted with
medical evidence. Id. at 1114 (ALJ must give germane reasons for discounting
competent lay witness testimony); Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir.
2 14-36044
2001) (a conflict with medical evidence is a germane reason to discount lay
witness testimony).
The ALJ did not err by excluding certain limitations from the hypothetical
question posed to the vocational expert. The ALJ properly excluded from the
hypothetical limitations that the ALJ did not find to be credible. See Bayliss v.
Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (the hypothetical presented to the
vocational expert must contain “limitations that the ALJ found credible and
supported by substantial evidence in the record”).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-36044