N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANDREA DEE HOLLOW AY, 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. 15-35908 D.C . No. 6:14-c v-01657-TC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Thom a s M . C offin, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2018 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER , N.R . SM ITH a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Andre a Hollowa y a ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the de c ision of theC om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity de ny ing he r a

pplic ations for disa bility insura nc e be n e fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e . W e have 

# FIL ED

MAR 12 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, se eBe rry v . Astrue , 622

F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th C ir. 2010), a n d we a ffirm
. 1. The ALJ prope rly

e xc lude d c onve rsion disorder or psy c hoge nic dy stonia
. No “ m e dic a lly

a c c e pta ble c l inic a l a

nd la boratory dia gnostic te c hnique s” re sulte d in
a finding or diagnosis of this im pa irm e nt. Se eUk

olov v . Barnhart , 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th C ir. 2005) (e m

pha sis omitte d); 42 U.S.C . § 423(d)(3). 2. The ALJ provide d spe c ific , c le ar and c onvinc i ng re a sons for disc re diting Hollowa y ’ s te stim ony

re ga rding these ve rity

of he r sym

ptom s. Se eSmole n v . C hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th C ir. 1996). Eve n a ssum ing theALJ e rre d by
c onside ring Hollowa

y ’ s c rim ina l history , se e SSR 16-3p, 81 Fe d . R e g. 14166, 14171, a ny e rror wa s ha

rm le s s. 3. The ALJ provide d spe c ific , le gitim ate re a sons tha t we re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e for disc re diting Dr. Die te r’ s opinion. Se eBay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005); Tommase tti v
. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ An ALJ m ay re je c t a tre ating phy sic ia

n's opinion if it is base d ‘ t o
a la rge e xte nt’ on a

c la im ant's se lf-re ports tha t ha ve be e n prope rly

disc ounte d a s inc re dible .” ) (c ita

tion omitte d).

24. The ALJ provide d ge rm ane re a s ons for disc re diting the te stim ony

of Thom a s M ille r, Hollowa

y ’ s boy frie nd, be c a

use his te stim ony

wa s inc onsiste nt with the m e dic a l re c ord. Se e Bay l iss , 427 F.3d a t 1218. 5. The ALJ’ s finding tha t jobs e x i st in signific a

nt num b e rs tha t Hollowa y
c ould pe rform wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se eSmole n , 80 F.3d a t 1279. TheALJ wa s pe rm i tte d to re ly on the job te stim ony

offe re d by the
voc ationa l e xpe rt. Se e J

o h nson v . Shalala , 60 F.3d 1428, 1435 (9th C ir. 1995). 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 In light of our disposition, we ne e d not a ddre ss Hollowa y ’ s re m a ining c onte ntions re g arding he r 2008 a pplic at ions.

3