NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAWAYNE MOGENSEN ,

P laintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
ANDREW M. SAUL , Commissioner of Social Security , Defendant

- Appellee

. No. 17

- 56620
No. 2:16

- cv - 05291

- PSG

- AS
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez , District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 22, 2019 * *
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN , Circuit Judges. Dawayne Mogensen appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Mogensen’s application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Secur ity Act . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo, Molina v.

* 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). 

# FILED

AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) , and we affirm

. The ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting testimony from Mogensen concerning the severity of his symptoms and
limitations. See Bray v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may not rely solely on lack of suppo rting objective medical evidence, but may consider it along with other factors ) ; Tommasetti v. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035,
1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may consider claimant’s daily activities and inconsistency between conservative treatment and severity of all eged symptoms); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (ALJ may consider evidence that treatment alleviated symptoms); Thomas v. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 960 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ may consider claimant’s demeanor )

. The ALJ proffered specific and legitimate reasons , supported by substantial
evidence , for discounting the contradicted opinions of treating physicians Dr s
. Billington, Montgomery, Kahmann, DiGiaro, and Van Kirk. See Bray , 554 F.3d at
1228

. The ALJ’s error s in rejecting Dr. Billington’s opinion because she does not specialize in mental health treatment and Dr. Montgomery’s opinion based on
information about h is treatment of other patients were harmless because the ALJ provided other specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the opinions

. See
Molina , 674 F.3d at 1115.3

Although the ALJ e rr oneously attribut ed PA Ebling’s June 2014 opinion to Dr. Kahmann, Mo gensen has not shown that this error affected the nondisability
determination

. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (opinion s as to whether claimant s are
unable to work are “not medical opinion s ” as this issue is reserved to the Commissioner). Any error therefore was harmless

. See Molina , 574 F.3d at 1115. Mogensen has not shown any error in the ALJ’s formulation of his Residual Functional Capacity

. See Stubbs

- Danielson v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1174

- 75 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding an ALJ’s transla tion of moderate limitations concerning concentration or pace into a limitation to unskilled work); Burch v. Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding no error where claimant did not point to any evidence of functional limitations due to an impa irment)

. AFFIRM ED
.