Leanne Conner v. Carolyn Colvin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 03 2017
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LEANNE RENEE CONNER, No. 14-17194
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02423-CMK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 29, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Leanne Renee Conner appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
*
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).
Social Security Act. Reviewing de novo, we may set aside a denial of benefits
only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or rests on legal error. Ghanim v.
Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly developed the administrative
record. In hearing notices sent to Conner and her non-attorney representative two
months prior to the administrative hearing, the agency instructed Conner to submit
any additional probative evidence not contained in her file. The ALJ also left the
record open for thirty days post-hearing to allow Conner an opportunity to
supplement the record. Accordingly, Conner’s contention that the administrative
record was incomplete lacks merit. See Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 602 (9th
Cir. 1998) (holding that the ALJ satisfied his duty to develop the record by leaving
the record open after the hearing).
The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding that
Conner was not fully credible. First, the ALJ permissibly considered Conner’s
documented failure to give maximum effort during examinations, citing two
examples from the record. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir.
2002). Second, the ALJ permissibly considered Conner’s ordinary physical exam
findings, and limited record of treatment as a basis for finding Conner less than
fully credible. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding
2
that lack of supportive medical evidence is a factor that an ALJ can consider in a
credibility analysis).
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Conner was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See
Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1161 (stating standard).
AFFIRMED.
3