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
JER R IE A. AR C HER , 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. 13-35659 D.C . No. 6:12-c v-00767-SI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t 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. Je rrie A. Arc he r a

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

bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc o m e unde r Title s II and XVI of the



# 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012), a nd a ffirm . 1. The a dm inistra

tive la wjudge (“ A LJ” ) provide d spe c i fic , c l e ar, and c onvinc i ng re a sons for re

je c ting Arc he r’ s subje c tive c om pla ints, inc luding her da ily a c tivitie s, he r fa ilure to se e k or c om p ly with c ounse ling tre atm e nt, fa i lure to take pre sc ribe d m e dic ation, a n d la c k of supporting me dic a l e v ide nc e . Se eSmole n v . C hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th C ir. 1996) (disc ussing fa c tors c onside re d in e va luating c re dibility

). 2. In re je c ting thete s tim ony

of Arc he r’ s da

ughte r, Sara

B a l l, the ALJ provide d re a sons “ ge rm ane to the witne s s” for doing so, by que stioning B a ll’ s a bility to a de quate ly

obse rve Arc he r, and by

noting tha

t B a ll’ s te stim ony

wa s inc o nsiste nt with the m e d i c a l e vide nc e . Se eMolina , 674 F.3d a t 1114 (re c iting sta nda rd); Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005) (c iting inc o nsiste nc y

with m e d i c a l e vide nc e a s a ge rm ane re a son). 3. The ALJ prope rly

e va luate d the m e dic a l opinions in de te rm ining Arc he r’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) and provide d

spe c ific , c le ar, a

nd c onvinc i ng re a sons for re

je c ting c e rta in m e dic a l opinions. Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008) (re c iting sta nda rd); id . at 1038 (e xpla i ning that this c ourt will uphold the ALJ’ s c onc lusion when

the e vide nc e is susc e ptibleto 2m ore tha

n one rationa l inte rpre tation). TheALJ prope rly re je c te d the opinions of e xam ining psy c h ologist Willia m True b lood, Ph.D., e xam ining phy sic ia n M i c ha e l He nde rson, M .D., a

nd a 2007 opinion by

tre ating phy sic ia

n Na nc y M a l one y , M .D., be c a use the se opinions re ste d la rge ly upon Arc h e r’ s disc ounte d c re dibility

and we re inc o nsiste nt with the ir own obje c tive findings a nd the m e dic a l re c ord. 4. Arc he r fa ile d to e sta

blish a ny se ve re phy sic a l or m e nta l im pa irm e nts be y ond thosefound by

the ALJ tha

t would re nde r the R

FC de te rm ination inc o m ple te . Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s finding tha

t a pe rson with Arc he r’ s R

FC c an pe rform

Arc he r’ s pa s t re le va

nt work. Se e M

olina , 674 F.3d a

t 1109-10. AFFIRM E D.

3