NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ALAN B. MCREYNOLDS ,

P etitioner ,

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

Respondent

. No. 1 8

- 35994
D.C. No. 3:17

- cv - 05984

- RJB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan , District Judge Presiding
Submitted December 13 , 2019 ** S eattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN , Circuit Judges , and PRATT , ** * District J udge

* 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).

*** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by d esignation. 

# FILED

DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Plaintiff Alan B. McReynolds appeals the district court ’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability benefits for a four

- year period

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing the
A dministrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision for substantial evidence and legal error , Garrison v. Colvin , 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014) , we affirm. McReynolds was a journeyman roofer until he fractured his spine in 2004. He
then found

— but declined

— a job that complied with his post

- injury work restrictions but offered lower pay and a longer commute

. He sought disability benefits in 2007

. Under the five

- step sequential analysis, t he ALJ determined that McReynolds
was not disabled because he could have perform ed available jobs in the economy following his i njury

. However, the ALJ concluded McReynolds was entitled to benefits as of May 14, 2008, his fifty

- fifth birthday. 1 McReynolds then spen t a decade litigating that he should have received
benefits from the date of his alleged disability onset in June 20 04 through May 2008,

too. This led to three more ALJ decisions , all denying benefits during this period , and three district court decisions, the most recent of which affirmed the benefits
denial

. At bottom, McReynolds argues that these decisions gave ins ufficient weight

to certain testimony

— from doctors, a physical therapist, his sister , and himself

—

1 “[A]t advanced age (age 55 or older), age significantly affects a person's ability to adjust to other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(e).3

and thus did not capture the extent of his mental and physical impairments.
I f the record can reasonably support either affirming or reversing the agency ’s decision, we must affirm. Hiler v. Astrue , 687 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2012). That
is the case here. This is so because “the ALJ is the final arbiter with respect to resolving ambiguities in the medical evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). In other words, t he ALJ

— not this Court

— decides
whether testimony is internally inconsistent or contradictory to a claimant’s
behavior. See Rollins v. Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 857 , 859 (9th Cir. 2001). With respect to me dical evidence , the ALJ ’s reasons for discounting testimony that depression caused McReynold s ’s disability were valid under Circuit
law. S ee Gregory v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir. 1988) ( approving ALJ ’s
find ing that symptoms we re not disabling when they did not prevent the claimant from working in the past )

. Furthermore , t he ALJ reasonably accounted for McReynolds’ s prescribed need to change position every twenty minutes , as affirmed by the district court

. To the extent the doctor’s prescription was ambiguous, that ambiguity was the ALJ’s to resolve. With respect to non

- medical evidence , the ALJ gave the then requisite “germane” reasons for rejecting testimony from two other witnesses

— a physical4

therapist and McReynolds’ s sister. 2 Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 613 F.3d 1217,
122 4 (9th Cir. 2010). T he ALJ also permissibly d iscounted McReynolds’ s own testimony that he c ould not work because of a disability when he previously cited a lousy wage and commute for turning down a job. See Bruton v. Massanari , 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2001).

B ecause th ese evidentiary assessments w ere valid, so too w ere the ALJ’s residual functional capacity and analysis at s tep f ive of the sequential evaluation

. T he ALJ’s determ ination is supported by substantial evidence , therefore, we affirm

t he agency’s decision

. AFFIRMED.

2 Then

- binding Social Security Ruling 06

- 03p required that “acceptable medical
sources ” receive more defere nce than “other sources.” SSR 06

- 03p, 2006 WL 2329939 (Aug. 9, 2006), rescinded by 82 F ed. R eg. 15263

- 01 (Mar. 27, 2017).