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

R AINE HAR

R IS, 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 n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-15537 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-01584-B AM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arbara M c Auliffe , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a n d GOR DON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED MAR 09 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Andre w P. Gordon, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ne v a da , sitting by de signa tion.Appe lla nt C hristine Ha

rris a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the A LJ’ s de nia l of disa

bility be ne fits. W e a ffirm
. A. Any

e rror the ALJ made in que

stioning the

v oc ational e

x pe rt is not a ground for re v e rsal. Harris’ s prim ary

argum e nt is tha

t the ALJ e rre d by

re ly ing on ta inte d te stim ony from a voc a tiona l e xpe rt. Ha

rris c onte nds tha

t the ALJ im

prope rly
a ske d the e xpe rt to givean opinion ba se d on a hy p othe tic a l pe rson who c ould lift up to a nd inc l uding te n pounds whe n the ALJ found tha t Ha rris c ould lift le s s tha

n te n pounds. Ha

rris’ s a rgum e nt fa ils be c a

use e vide n c e in the re c ord supports the ALJ’ s hy pothe tic a l to thee xpe rt. Magallane s v . Bow e n , 881 F.2d 747, 757 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ The lim i tation of e vide nc e in a hy pothe tic a l que stion is obje c tiona ble

‘ o nly if the a ssum e d fa c t s c ould not besupporte d by the re c ord.’ ” ) (c ita

tions
om i tte d). In a ddition, there is no e vide n c e tha t the a lle ge d e rror Harris points to
wa s m ate ria l to thee xpe rt’ s opinion or the ALJ’ s de c ision— so it would be a ha rm le s s e rror a

ny way . Se e Mc

Le od v . Astrue , 640 F.3d 881, 886–88 (9th C ir. 2011). B. The ALJ ’s c re dibility de te rmination w

as ade quate l

y supporte d by there c ord. The ALJ ga

ve signific a

nt we ight to Ha

rris’ s subje c tive te stim ony . To the
e xte nt tha t the ALJ found som e of he r te stim o ny le ss tha n c om ple t e ly c re d ible , the 2ALJ provide d le g a lly suffic i e nt re a sons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the
re c o rd. First, theALJ note d tha t som e of Ha

rris’ s a l le gations we re inc onsiste nt with the obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord. Thomas v
. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 958–59 (9th C ir. 2002). Se c ond, the ALJ pointe d to the fa c t tha t for y e ars Harris re c e ive d

re lative ly c onse rvative tre at

m e nt. Third, e v i de nc e of Ha rris’ s da ily
a c tivitie s c o ntra d ic te d the e xte n t of he r c o m p la ints. Rounds v . C

omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th C i r. 2015). C
. Harris w a iv e d he r othe r argume nts. Harris a lso a

rgue s tha t the ALJ e rre d by

fa iling to ma

k e a dditiona l findings
a bout he r lim ita

tions a nd by fa iling to c onside r he r e xpla nations for a dve rse e vide nc e in the re c ord. B e c a use Ha rris ra ise s the se argum e nts for the first tim e on a ppe a l, the y

are wa ive d
. Edlund v . Massanari , 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 n.7 (9th C ir 2001). B ut e ve n if the y

we re not wa ive d, the re is no indic a tion tha t the se e rrors would be pre

judic ia l; thus they

are not grounds for re ve rsa l. Mc Le od , 640 F.3d a

t 886–88. AFFIRM E D.

3