NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRAD BLANSETTE, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 15488
D.C. No. 2:15

- cv - 00643

- NVW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 27, 2018 * *
Before: FARRIS, CANBY, and LEAVY , Circuit Judges
Brad Blansette appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Blansette’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We r eview de novo, Brown

- Hunter v. Colvin , 806 F.3d

* 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

MAY 1 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15488 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm. Blansette waived any challenge to the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) rejection of his testimony by failing to raise the issue before the district court. See Grege r v. Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006). Blansette further waived any contention that the ALJ failed to properly develop the record, or any contention of error at steps two or three, by failing to raise the issues before the district court. See id

. We note, however, that substan tial evidence supported the ALJ’s rejection of Blansette’ s description of the severity of his symptoms in light of his reported daily activities, and his frequent failure to comply with recommended or prescribed treatment

. See Molina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1112

- 14 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ provided several specific and legitimate reasons to reject Dr. Campbell’s opinion: inconsistency with other objective medical evidence in the record, reliance on Blansette’s unreliabl e self

- reports, and inconsistency with Dr. Campbell’s own unremarkable examination findings. See Tommasetti v. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (reliance on self

- reports and inconsistency with the physician’s own treatment notes ); Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (inconsistency with other objective medical evidence). Any error in relying on additional reasons was harmless. See Molina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (error is harmless w here it is3 16

- 15488 inconsequential to the nondisability determination). By limiting Blansette to simple tasks with only occasional changes in work setting, occasional interaction with the public and co

- workers, and no fast

- paced production demands, the ALJ reasonably assessed specific functional limitations based on the opinions provided by Dr. Ga ndhi and Dr. Janssen. See Stubbs

Danielson v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming the ALJ’s assessment of specific limitations in the RFC when supported by substantial evidence). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that B lansette was not disabled based on the testimony of the Vocational Expert (VE). The ALJ properly relied upon th e VE’s testimony rather than Grid Rule 201.14 to conclude that Blansette was not disabled because Blansette did not meet the criteria for the Gr id
Rule

. See Thomas v. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 960 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that the ALJ properly relies upon a VE’s testimony when the claimant fails to satisfy the criteria for a Grid Rule ). The VE properly identified a significant number of jobs th at Blansette could perform. See Guttierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 740 F.3d 519, 529 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that 25,000 jobs nationwide is significant). The ALJ did not err by failing to credit the VE’s testimony in response to a hypothetical questi on that was unsupported by the record. Remand to the Commissioner to consider new evidence is inappropriate4 16

- 15488 because Blansette fails to show that the new evidence is material when it post

- dates the relevant period and does not include any new functional lim itations

. See Luna
v. Astrue , 623 F.3d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that evidence is material when it bears directly on the matter and there is a reasonable possibility that it would have changed the outcome). AFFIRMED.