NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN MOUA, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-15138 D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01549-GSA
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 10, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: FARRIS, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Benjamin Moua appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Moua asserts that he was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and therefore was entitled to Supplemental Security Benef its under Title XVI of the Act. Moua 

# FILED
MAR 14 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.argues that the ALJ erred in finding that he failed to demonstrate an impairment or combination of impairments of sufficient se verity to meet or equal the criteria set forth at 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 12.05C. 1 We affirm. Listing 12.05C requires “[a] valid verbal , performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function.” 2The ALJ concluded that Moua could not satisfy the “limitation of f unction” requirement. In so doing, he disregarded the opinion of Dr. Nowlan, an examining doctor, that Moua “should be able to lift and/or carry 40 pounds o ccasionally and 15 pounds frequently.” Nowlan’s opinion was controverted by a reviewing physician, Dr. Ocrant, and a consulting physician, Dr. Lopez. To disregard it, the ALJ therefore had to articulate specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Lester v. Chater , 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). He satisfied that requirement by stating that “[t]hese restrictions are not supported by the consultative examination findings or confirmed by other treatment records.”

1 Moua challenges only the ALJ’s determination at step three of the fivestep sequential process set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). 2It also requires that any “deficits in adaptive functioning” have manifested “during the developmental period; i.e., th e evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22.” 2Nowlan’s records indicated “good” range of motion, “5/5” strength in all muscle groups, normal sensory and reflex examinations, “no physical limitations . . . in spite of [Moua’s] obesity,” and no other abnormalities. See Tommasetti v. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that an “incongruity” between a doctor’s opinion and his medical records may suffice as a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting that doctor’s opinion). The records revealed no physiological basis for the lifting restrictions and No wlan offered no explanation for them. See Bayliss v. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (“An ALJ need not accept the opinion of a doctor if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by the clinical findings.”). Under these circumstances, the ALJ did not err in disregarding Nowlan’s recommended lifting limitations. See Andrews v. Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1995). With that recommendation excluded, Moua cannot demonstrate “aphysical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant workrelated limitation of function.” He ther efore does not meet or equal Listing 12.05C. AFFIRMED

3