NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELA E. DELEON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 35034
D.C. No. 3:16

- cv - 05513

- RAJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 8, 2020 * * Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON, D.M. FISHER, ** * and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Angela DeLeon appeals the denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

review de novo the district court’s order

. Dale v. Colvin , 823 F.3d 941 , 943 (9th Cir. 2016). We must affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision “if it is supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal error.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g))

. In addition, “ w e must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are
sup ported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record,” and we may not reverse the ALJ’s decision “on account of an error that is harmless.” Molina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 20 12 ). We affirm the district court.
1. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s weighing of the medical evidence. The ALJ appropriately discounted the opinions of Drs. Pe r rillo, Schleef, Guerreiro,
and Asher and gave “specific and legitimate reasons ” for doing so, citing discrepancies between the physicians’ clinical notes and opinions, conflicting
medical evidence , conservative treatment for DeLeon ’s injuries, and
inconsistencies between those opinions and DeLeon ’s reported daily activities. See Bayliss v. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005); Morgan v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin ., 169 F.3d 595, 603 (9th Cir. 1999) ; Johnson v. Shalala , 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)

. The ALJ also made permissible credibility
det erminations with respect to those physicians, and in particular, Dr. Perrillo

. Saelee v. Chater , 94 F.3d 520, 522

– 23 (9th Cir. 1996). Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s re liance on the opinion s of

non - examining physicians as those opinions are consistent with the record as a3

whole. See Sousa v. Callahan , 143 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998) (ALJ may “reject the opinion of a non

- examining physician by reference to specific evidence in the medical record”); Magallanes v. Bowen , 881 F.2d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 1989) (reports of consultative physicians may serve as substantial evidence whe n consistent with other record evidence)

. To the extent DeLeon further argues reliance on those reports was improper because the consulting physicians did not

rev iew the treating physicians’ reports, the ALJ was required to consider that fact in weighing their opinions, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), and in any event, the
ALJ discounted the treating physicians’ opinions. Although a different ALJ could
have reache d a different conclusion, as DeLeon argues, the ALJ’s conclusions must be upheld because they are supported by substantial evidence. Morgan , 169 F.3d at 601.
2. The ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons to support its adverse credibility
determination regard ing DeLeon ’s testimony, which are supported by substantial
evidence. Id. at 599. DeLeon does not point to instances in the record that undermine those findings, but instead disputes that the evidence demonstrates that she can engage in meaningful work. However, the ALJ may discredit a claimant’s allegations if the claimant “is able to spend a substantial part of his day engaged in pursuits involving the performance of physical functions that are transferable to a work setting.” Id. at 600; see also Moli na , 674 F.3d at 1113. The ALJ considered4

th at DeLeon homeschools her children who have special needs , is able to take a full load of college

- level courses , and c an work the duration of a workday with
reasonable breaks. The ALJ also considered DeLeon ’s poor work history, dating back to before she had children, in determining the credibility of her testimony about her ability to work. Thomas v. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002). Because the ALJ’s findings do no t lack support in the record, they must be upheld. Molina , 674 F.3d at 1111.
3. The ALJ also gave germane reasons for discounting the lay testimony of
DeLeon ’s mother, Carla Scaletta , citing specific instances where DeLeon ’s testimony about her limitations c ontradicted Scaletta

. Dodrill v. Shalala , 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993). To the extent the ALJ failed to consider the lay testimony of DeLeon ’s husband, Rudy DeLeon , DeLeon has not shown the error to
be h armful. Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin

. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (invalid adverse credibility findings are subject to harmless error analysis). DeLeon does not identify any part of her husband’s statement that describes symptoms or limitations that she or her mother had not alread y described. Because the ALJ rejected those limitations as inconsistent with Scaletta’s testimony or DeLeon ’s reported daily activities, the ALJ’s failure to
address DeLeon ’s husband’s testimony was harmless.
4. The ALJ’s finding that DeLeon ’s impairments do not meet a listing, residual5

functional capacity determination, and Step 5 finding are supported by substantial
evidence. The ALJ reasonably accounted for the limitations which were supported by the record evidence. See Stubbs

- Danielson v. Astrue , 539 F .3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). Because the ALJ did not err in evaluating the medical evid ence, the ALJ likewise did not err by not fully crediting medical opinions that were not supported by that evidence.
AFFIRMED.