N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT JOHN T. W ILLIAM S, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15842 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02091-NC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Nat ha na e l M . C ousins, M a gistra te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d July

6, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FR IEDM AN, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL E D
JUL 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

b le for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

b le Pa u l L. Frie dm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of C olum

bia , sitting by

de signa t ion.C la im ant John T. W illia m s se e ks re vie w of a

fina l de c ision of the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , de ny ing his c l a im for disa bility insura nc e be ne fits a nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e . W e re vie w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision, whic h a ffirm e d the C om m issione r, and m a

y se t a side the C om

m issione r’ s de c ision only

if it c onta ins a

le ga l e rror or is unsupporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord a s a w h ole
. B ay liss v. B arnha rt, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th C ir. 2005). C la im an t a

rgue s tha t substa ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity (" RFC " ) finding a

t ste p five of the se que ntia l e va luation proc e s s. W e a ffirm
. 1. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the finding by

the a dm inistra

tive la w judge (" ALJ" ) that C la im a

nt e xa gge ra te d his sy

m ptom s. The ALJ pe rm issibly re lie d on C la im an t’ s fa ilure to ta

ke m e dic ations pre sc ribe d for m a na g e m e nt of his de pre s sion. Se e M olina

v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th C ir. 2012) (holding that an ALJ m ay

disc ount a

c la im ant’ s te stim ony

a bout se ve rity

of sy m ptom s if the le ve l of c om

p la int e xc e e ds the le ve l of tre atm e nt). The ALJ a lso pe rm issibly re lie d on C l a im ant’ s own re port tha t he ha d stoppe d working in 2007 not be c a use of
m e dic a l proble m s but, ra

the r, be c a use he wa s la id off. Se e B ruton v. M a ssa na ri,

2268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th C ir. 2001) (holding tha t le aving work for non-m e dic a l
re a s ons is a

prope r fa c tor in a sse ssing c re dibility ). 2. The ALJ did not im

p e rm issibly

disre ga rd the la y e vide nc e from C la im an t’ s frie nd Hughe s. B e c a use Hughe s ’ te stim ony

a bout these ve rity

of sym ptom s de rive d from

C la im ant’ s own c om

pla ints, theALJ pe rm issibly disc ounte d this te s tim ony to the sa m e e xte n t a s C la im a

nt’ s te stim ony . Se e M olina , 674 F.3d a

t 1121 (holding tha

t " if a n ALJ ha s provide d we ll-supporte d grounds for
re je c ting te stim ony

re ga rding spe c ifie d lim ita

tions, wec annot ignorethe ALJ’ s
re a s oning a

nd re v e rse the a g e nc y

m e re l y be c a use the ALJ did not e xpre ssly disc re dit e a c h witne ss who de sc ribe d the sa m e lim ita tions" ). 3. Eve n if the ALJ e rre d in re je c ting a portion of Dr. C a in’ s te stim ony
c onc e rning a

tte nda nc e , a ny e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. Se e B urc h v. B arnha rt, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th C ir. 2005) (" A de c ision of theALJ will not be re ve rse d for e rrors that are ha rm le ss." ). The re wa s no e vide nc e , a pa rt from C la im ant’ s te stim ony

tha t the A LJ pe rm issibly

disc ounte d , tha

t C la im ant e ve r ha d, or would bee xpe c te d to have , atte nda

nc e proble m s e xc e e ding thevoc ationa l e xpe rt’ s sta te d thre shold. 4. The ALJ pe rm issibly gave littlewe ight to Dr. B rande s’ opinion be c a use it
wa s inc onsiste n t with theopinions of othe r sourc e s, inc luding Dr. C a in a nd phy sic ia ns a t C linic Ole . Se e Tona

pe ty an v. Ha l te r, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th C ir. 32001) (holding tha t the c ontra

ry opinion of a non-e xam ining m e dic a l sourc e , in
c om bina tion with othe

r inde pe nde nt e vide n c e in the re c ord, m ay c onstitute

a spe c ific , le gitim a te re a son for re je c ting a n e xam ining phy sic ia

n’ s opinion). 5. The ALJ pe rm issibly re je c te d the ra

pist Hic ks’ opinion be c a

use it wa s inc o nsiste nt with the opinions of othe r sourc e s. Id. 6. The R FC finding a de q

uate ly inc orporat e d lim ita

tions re late d to
c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , or pa c e be c a use it limite d the work tha t C la im an t c ould do to sim ple , re pe t itive ta s ks. Se e Stubbs-Da nie lson v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1176 (9th C ir. 2008) (a

pproving a

sim ila r RFC finding in sim

ila r c i rc um sta

nc e s). AFFIRM E D.

4