N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DENNA R

ASHO HASSO, 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. 13-16268 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00383-SM M M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste phe n M . M c Nam e e , Se n i or Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 17, 2015 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, C HR ISTEN, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED SEP 22 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion 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 this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).De nna R a sho Ha sso a

ppe a ls from

the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra tion’ s de nia l of he r a

pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm . 1. Ha sso c la i m s tha

t the a ge nc y

e rre d by a c c ording m inim a l we ight to the a sse ssm e nt offe re d by Dr. C e rat o, one of he r tre ating phy sic ia ns. Dr. C e rato’ s a sse ssm e nt dire c tly

c onflic te d with theopinion e v ide nc e offe re d by se ve n doc tors, two of whom

we re a l so Ha sso’ s tre ating phy sic ia ns. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha t Dr. C e rato’ s opinion wa s “ not supporte d by the t re atm e nt re c ords or by

the a c tivitie s of da ily

living.”Ha sso te s tifie d to pe rform i ng da i ly

a c tivitie s tha

t a re inc onsiste nt with Dr. C e rato’ s a sse ssm e nt. Furthe r, Dr. C e rato’ s own tre ating re c ords from Ha sso’ s m ost re c e nt a

ppointm e nt sta te tha t Ha s so wa s “ [i] n no a c ute distre ss,” “ [d] e nie [d] bone pa in, m usc l e pa in, bila te ra l ha nd a nd right wrist joint pa

in,” an d ha d “ [n] o he a d a c he ” or “ e xtre m [e ] we akne ss.” Se eTommase t ti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ The inc o ngruity

be t we e n [tre ating phy sic ia

n] ’ s Que stionna ire re sponse s a nd he r m e dic a l re c ords provide s a n a dditional spe c ific and le gitim at e re a son for re j e c ting [he r] opinion of [a

ppe lla nt’ s] lim ita

t ions.” ). Dr. C e rato tre ate d Ha sso for le ss tha n a y e a r, and just five m onths be fore he offe re d his a sse ssm e nt, he told Ha sso tha t he

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, so we do not re c ount the m he re . 2wa s not qua lifie d to providea

disa bility le tte r for he r. Aga inst the se fa c ts, we c onc lude tha

t the re wa s no e rror in the a ge n c y ’ s de c ision to a c c o rd m i nim a l we ight to Dr. C e rato’ s a sse ssm e nt. Se eOrn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th C i r. 2007). 2. Ha sso a lso c ha lle n ge s the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t he r sym ptom te stim ony la c ke d c re dibility . The a ge nc y offe re d c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons to support its c re dibility

finding, pointing to inc onsiste nc ie s in Ha s so’ s da ily a c tivitie s, he r re fusa l of m e nta l he a lth tre atm e nt, he r work history , he r re c e ipt of une m ploy m e nt be ne fits, he r fina

nc ia l m o tiva

tions, a nd the la c k of obje c tive c a use s for he r c la im e d sy

m ptom s. Thosere a sons a

re “ supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord,” se eThomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th C i r. 2002), a nd

“ suffic ie ntly

spe c ific to a llow [us] to c onc lude the a djudic ator re je c te d the c la im ant’ s te stim ony

on pe rm issiblegrounds,” B unne ll v . Sulliva n , 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th C i r. 1991) (e n

ba nc ). 3. B e c a

use we find no le ga l e rror in the a ge nc y ’ s de c isions to ac c ord m inim a l we ight to Dr. C e rato’ s a sse ssm e nt a n d to disc re dit Ha sso’ s sy m ptom te stim ony , we se e no re a son to c re dit a s true the re je c t e d e v ide nc e and re m and for an a w ard of be ne fits. Se e Smole n v . C hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th C ir. 1996). AFFIRM E D.

3