Case ID: f-appx_639/html/0470-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jamie L. COMMACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-15521.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 15, 2016.
    
    Filed April 27, 2016.
    Mark Ross Caldwell, Caldwell & Ober LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael A. Johns, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, Marc Thayne Warner, Esquire, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration General Counsel’s Office, Region VIII, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jamie Commack appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012). We affirm.

The administrative law judge did not err in finding that Commack’s symptom testimony was not fully credible. The ALJ provided “specific, clear, and convincing reasons” for the credibility assessment that were supported by substantial evidence in the record. See id. at 1113 (ALJ can reject claimant testimony about severity of symptoms by offering specific, clear, and convincing reasons). These reasons included Commack’s inconsistent statements, inconsistencies between her statements and the medical evidence, Com-mack’s failure to engage in self-help, and a finding of malingering.

The ALJ did not err by giving little weight to the opinions of two of Com-mack’s treating physicians. Both opinions were contradicted by the opinions of non-treating physicians, and the ALJ provided “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record” for rejecting them. Reddick v. Chafer, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir.1998).

The ALJ’s assessment of Commack’s residual work capacity was supported by substantial evidence, including admissions made in Commack’s application for benefits, her testimony at the hearing, and the objective medical record.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.