N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT ANTHONY LEE TAYLOR , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16944 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-02042-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 i tte d Oc tobe r 5, 2015 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , D.W . NELSON a nd LEAVY, C irc uit Judge s. Anthony Le e Ta

y lor a p pe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing theC om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de n ia l of his a p plic at ion for supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e unde r Title XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e 

# FIL ED OCT 07 2015 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 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de

novo, Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012), a nd a ffirm . The Adm inistra

tive La wJudge (“ ALJ” ) provide d spe c ific , c le ar and c onvinc i ng re a sons to disc ount Ta y lor’ s te stim ony

re ga rding theinte nsity , pe rsiste nc e , a

nd limiting e ffe c ts of his pain, his im m obility , a

nd the side e ffe c ts of m e dic at ions. First, the

ALJ re a sona

b ly de t e rm i ne d tha

t Ta y lor’ s a lle g at ion tha

t he wa s c om p le te ly disa ble d a s a re sult of his gout wa s not supporte d by the m e dic a l e vide nc e . Se e Rollins v . Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th C ir. 2001). Se c ond, the ALJ a lso re a sona bly c onside re d tha

t sinc e filing his a

pplic ation in Oc tobe r 2008, Ta

y l or re c e ive d lim ite d tre atm e nt for his sy m ptom s a nd tha t he ha d not be e n fully

c om p lia nt with the

c onse rvative tre atm e nt tha t he did re c e ive or that wa s re c om

m e nde d for his hy

pe rte n sion. S

e e Parra v . Astrue , 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th C i r. 2007); F

air v . Bow e n , 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th C ir. 1989). Third, in a sse ssing Ta

y lor’ s c re dibility , the ALJ a lso re a sona bly took into a c c ount Ta

y lor’ s poor work history . Se eThomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th C ir. 2002) (noting tha t c l a im a nt “ ha d a n e xtre m e ly

poor work history

and ha s shown little

prope nsity

to work in her life tim e , whic h ne gative ly a ffe c te d he r c re d ibility

re ga rding he r ina

bility to work” ) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Tay lor ne v e rthe le ss c onte nds tha t the ALJ e rre d in disc re diting his te stim ony 2be c a

use two tre ating phy sic ia

ns c e rtifie d tha

t he c ould not re turn to work. Although two phy sic i ans e xam ine d Ta y lor in c onne c tion with his une m ploy m e nt insura nc e c la im an d

c e rtifie d tha

t he c ould not re turn to work for se ve ra l m onths, ne ithe r opine d tha

t Ta y lor wa s pe rm a

n e ntly disa ble d. M ore ove r, a lthough Ta y lor’ s tre ating phy sic i a

n note d tha

t he did not fore se e him

re turning to his pre

vious job, he re pe ate dly

e nc o ura ge d Ta

y lor to c ha

nge his job or se e k re tra ining. Fina lly , Ta

y lor’ s c onte ntion tha

t the ALJ’ s hy

pothe t ic a l to thevoc ationa l e xpe rt wa s inc om

ple te e s se ntia l ly

re sta te s his a rgum e nt tha

t the ALJ im

prope rly disc re dite d his te stim ony

re ga rding thelim i ting e ffe c ts of his sy m ptom s. Although Tay lor a rgue s for a diffe re nt re a ding of there c ord, the ALJ’ s inte rpre tat ion of the e vide nc e wa s rationa l and should be uphe ld. Se eTommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2008). AFFIRM E D.

3