N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SALLY R OSE-EC KER T,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , ** De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-16148

D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00357-NVW
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 Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 14, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd PIER SOL, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
JUL 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.
** Nanc y B e rryhill ha s be e n substitute d a s the De fe n da nt in pla c e of C aroly n W . C olvin pursua

nt to F E D . R
. A P P . P. 43(c )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble La wre nc e L. Pie rsol, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of South Da

k o ta , sitting by

de signa tion.Sa lly

R ose -Ec ke rt a

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

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision denovo. Molina v

. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). W e a ffirm
. The ALJ did not errone ously we i gh the m e d ic a l opinion e vide nc e by
re je c ting theopinion of the tre a ting phy sic ia

n, Dr. M e rz e nic h , in fa

vor of the
c onflic ting opinions of the e xam ining phy sic ia

n, Dr. Jone s a

nd the non-e x am ining phy sic ia ns. The ALJ provide d se ve ra l spe c ific and le gitim a te re a sons whic h we re supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord for giving little we ight to Dr. M e rz e nic h’ s opinion. Vale n tine v . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 692 (9th C ir. 2009). The ALJ found Rose -Ec ke rt’ s de sc ription of he r sym ptom s “ not c re d ible to the e xte nt the c la im an t ’ s sta te m e nts a re inc onsiste nt with the

re sidua l func tiona l
c a pa c ity a sse ssm e nt he re in.” W e a ga in disc oura ge the use of boile rplat e la ngua ge , whic h is a lm ost unive rsa lly use d by a dm inistra

tive la wjudge s. S

e e Tre i c hle r v . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th C ir. 2014). Suc h la ngua ge is unhe lpful a

nd c onfusing. Sta

nding a lone , it m ay c onstitute re ve rsible e rror. Id. In this c a s e , howe ve r, the ALJ followe d the boile rplat e la ngua ge with the prope r two2ste p c re dibility ana ly sis. The ALJ provide d spe c ific , c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons, whic h we re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , for his finding tha t R ose -Ec ke rt’ s subje c tive c om

pla ints we re le ss tha

n fully c re dible
. Se e Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 2008). If theALJ’ s c re dibility finding is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , this c ourt “ m ay not e nga ge in se c ond-gue ssing.” Thomas v

. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th C ir. 2002). The ALJ prope rly

e va luate d

the sta t e m e nt submitte d by

the c la im ant’ s husba n d, M r. Ec ke rt. In de te rm ining tha t M r. Ec ke rt’ s sta

te m e n ts a b out his wife ’ s lim ita tions we re “ l e ss pe rsua sive ,” the ALJ c ite d re a sons tha t we re ge rm ane to M r. Ec ke rt a nd whic h we re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . S

e e Gre ge r v . Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th C ir. 2006) (la y witne s s’ s c l ose re lat ionship to c la im ant a nd de sire to he lp c la im ant is a ge rm ane re a s on to disc re dit te stim ony ) ; Bay liss v

. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005) (inc o nsiste nc y with m e dic a l
e vide nc e is a

ge rm ane re a son to disc re dit te stim ony of a la y witne s s). Fina lly , the ALJ’ s hy

pothe tic a l to thevoc a tiona l e xpe rt wa s suffic ie nt. The ALJ is fre e to om it from the hy pothe tic a l phy sic a l or m e nta l lim ita tions a rtic ulate d by a c la im ant or he r phy sic ia n if the ALJ ha s prope rly

de te rm ine d suc h lim ita

tions
are n ot c re dible or a

re n o t supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . Bray

v . C omm’r,

3Soc . Se c . Admin. , 554 F.3d. 1219, 1228 (9th C ir. 2009); Ose nbroc k v . Apfe l , 240 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th C ir. 2001). AFFIRM E D.

4