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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 15-35059 D.C . No. C 13-5925-JC C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 19, 2017 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd TR OTT a

nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Tina Johnson a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s a ffirm anc e of the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r Title s II and XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED DEC 21 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).§ 1291 a

nd 42 U.S.C . § 405(g). W e re vie w de novo, A ttmore v . C olv in , 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th C ir. 2016), a nd we a ffirm . The a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) did not e rr in disc ounting the globa l a sse ssm e nt of func tioning (“ GAF” ) sc ore Dr. C ode r a ssigne d to Johnson be c a

use the A LJ provide d

spe c ific and le gitim ate re a s ons, supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , for doing so. Se e Ry an v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th C ir. 2008) (c ita tion omitte d). The ALJ sta te d he disc ounte d the GAF sc ore for the following re a sons: (1) it wa s not suffic ie ntly e xpla ine d or supporte d by the re c ord, a

nd it wa s unc le ar from

the e vide nc e whe the r the GAF sc ore re fle c t e d Johnson’ s func tiona lity , Johnson’ s se lf-de sc ribe d sy m ptom s, or both, whic h a ffe c ts the s c o re ’ s re le va nc y for a sse ssing thec la i m ant’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ); (2) the sc ore wa s ba se d in pa rt on c l a im ant’ s sta

te m e nts c onc e rning he r func tiona lity , whic h the ALJ found le ss tha n fully c re dible ; and (3) a Fe de ra l R e g iste r notic e publishe d by the Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion e xpla ine d the GAF sc a le doe s not dire c tly c orre lat e with the re quire m e nts of the a ge nc y ’ s m e nta l disorde r listings, Se e 65 Fe d . R e g. 50746-01 a t 50764-65. In a ddition, the ALJ a fforde d “ gre at we ight” to the othe r de sc riptive portion of Dr. C ode r’ s opinion a

nd inc orporate d it into the ana ly sis of Johnson’ s R FC .

2The ALJ did not err in finding tha t Johnson’ s a lle g at ions re ga rding the se ve rity of he r sym

ptom s a nd limita tions we re not e ntire ly

c re dible . The ALJ pe rform e d the re quire d two-step a na ly sis a nd e xpla ine d tha

t Johnson’ s sta

te m e nts c onc e rning he r diffic u ltie s with wa lking, sta nding, m e m ory , a

nd othe r lim ita

tions we re c ontra dic te d by the m e dic a l e vide nc e , by inc onsiste nc ie s in he r te stim ony , and by he r da ily a c tivitie s, na

m e ly m ana ging he r own pe rsona l c are , m e a ls, a nd c hore s , going outside

da ily , driving a

c ar, groc e ry

shopping, mana ging he r sa vings a c c ount a nd pa y ing bills, a s we ll a s hobbie s suc h a s re a ding, c am

ping, fishing, watc hing te le vision (fivehours a t a tim e , whe the r or not whilesitting is unc le ar), and wa lking he r dog. Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1112-13 (9th C ir. 2012) . The s e re a sons we re spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing, a nd the y a de quate ly supporte d the c re dibility

finding. Id . at 1112. M ore ove r, in c ha lle nging the ALJ’ s c re dibility finding, Johnson fa

ile d to m ake he r argum e nt with a ny spe c ific ity , a s re quire d

to pre se rve the issue on a ppe a l. Se e C

armic k lev . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th C ir. 2008). As a re sult, theC ourt is not re quire d to a ddre ss c ounse l’ s pe rfunc tory argum e nt. The e vide nc e from

Dr. Gritz ka , subm itte d to a nd c onside re d

by the Appe a l s C ounc il, did not unde

rm ine the substa

ntia l e vide nc e upon whic h the ALJ ba se d this 3de c ision. To the e xte nt tha

t Dr. Gritzka ’ s e vide nc e sum m ariz e s c la im ant’ s m e dic a l re c o rds pre c e ding theALJ’ s de c ision, Johnson’ s othe r m e dic a l provide rs a lre a dy e va luate d this e vide nc e , a nd the ALJ a lre a dy

c onside re d a

nd fa c tore d the ir opinions into his de c ision. To the e xte nt tha t Dr. Gritzk a ’ s opinion is ba se d upon his e xam i nation of a

n d inte rvie w with Johnson, this e vide nc e post-da

te s the ALJ’ s de c ision a nd is not re l e va

nt be c a use it doe s not “re late to the pe riod on or be fore the A LJ’ s de c ision.” Se e B re w e s v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 682 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th C ir. 2012) (c iting 20 C .F.R . § 404.970). The la y witne ss e vide nc e from Johnson’ s m othe r, Eve l yn Le wis, a lso subm itte d to a

nd c onside re d by

the Appe a ls C ounc il, did not unde rm ine the ALJ’ s de c ision. M s. Le wis’ la

y witne ss sta

te m e nt wa s sim ila

r to the c l a im ant’ s te stim ony . Furthe r, the ALJ disc ounte d Johnson’ s sim ila

r te stim ony

for la c k of c re d ibility . Whe n a

n ALJ provide s c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for re j e c ting a c la im ant’ s te stim ony , a

nd a la y witne sse s ’ s te stim ony

is simila r to the c la i m ant’ s te stim ony , the ALJ m ay

re je c t the la y witne ss te stim ony

for the sa m e re a sons he re je c te d the c l a im a

nt’ s te stim o ny

be c a use suc h re a s ons a

re ge rm ane for re

je c ting the l ay witne ss te stim ony . Vale ntine v . C o mm’r Soc . Se c . Admin ., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th C i r. 2009)). B e c a u se the ALJ prope rly

disc ounte d c la im ant’ s sim ila r te stim ony , it is unlike ly

the ne w e vide nc e from

M s. Le wis “ would ha

ve c ha nge d 4the o utc om e of the . . . de te rm ination.” S e e Luna v . Astrue , 623 F.3d 1032, 1034 (9th C ir. 2010). AFFIRM E D .

5