N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDWARD J. SAGER ,

Pla i ntiff - 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. 13-36084 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-00102-R KS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Ke i th Strong, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 4, 2015 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : KOZINSKI, FISHER and WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. Edwa rd Sa ge r a

p pe a l s the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt a ffirm ing the de c ision of thea dm i n istra tive la w judge (ALJ) de ny ing his a p plic ation for soc ia l
se c urity disa bility be ne fits. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, we 

# FIL ED NOV 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e d e 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).re vie w de novo, se e Be rry v . Astrue , 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we
a ffirm
. 1. The ALJ did not im p rope rly re je c t the opinions of Sage r’ s tre ating phy sic ia ns. Dr. Pe te rson’ s c onc lusory opinion tha

t Sa ge r wa s una

ble to work wa s not a “ m e dic a l opinion”but ra the r a que stion re se rve d to theALJ. Se e 29 C .F.R
. § 404.1527(d), (d)(1). The ALJ wa s not re q

uire d to disc uss e ve ry

m e dic a l finding in the re c ords of Dr. Pe te rson a nd Dr. Ke lly
. Se e How ard e x re l. W olff v . Barnhart , 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th C ir. 2003). Nor wa s the ALJ re quire d to c re dit Sa ge r’ s subje c tive c om

pla ints m e re ly be c a

use the y we re re c orde d in his phy sic ia ns’
re c o rds. Se e Batson v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th C ir. 2004). 2. The ALJ offe re d spe c ific , c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for re je c ting Sa ge r’ s te stim o ny

a bout these ve rity

of his sy m ptom s. Se eLinge nfe lte r

v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th C ir. 2007). Sa ge r fa ile d to c om ply with tre at

m e nt re c o m m e ndations to quit sm

oking, ta ke pre sc ribe d m e d ic ations, ha ve e p idura l inje c tions, c onsiste ntly pe rform a hom e e x e rc ise progra

m and c onside r spina l c ord stim ulat ion tre atm e nt. This nonc om plia nc e unde rm i ne s his c la im s of de bilita ting pa in. Se eTommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 2008); Burc h v
. Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th C ir. 2005). TheALJ a lso found the m e dic a l
2e vide nc e did not substa ntia te Sa ge r’ s subje c tive a lle g ations of disa b ling lim ita tions. This too was a prope r re a s on to disc ount Sa ge r’ s te stim ony . Se e Rollins v . Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ While subje c tive pa in te stim ony c annot be re

je c t e d on thesole ground tha t it is not fully

c orroborate d by obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e , the m e dic a l e vide nc e is still a re le va nt fa c tor in de te rm i ning these ve rity

of the c la im ant’ s pa i n a

nd its disa

bling e ffe c ts.” ). 3. The ALJ did not pose

an inc om p le te hy pothe tic a l to the voc ationa l
e xpe rt. The hy

pothe t ic a l prope rly

inc lude d only

those lim i tations tha

t the ALJ found we re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . S

e e Robbins v . Soc . Se c . Admin. , 466 F.3d 880, 886 (9th C ir. 2006). AFFIRM E D.

3