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 ISTINA M . LOPEZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r, Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35718 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-1810-M J P M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M arsha J. Pe c hm an, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 13, 2015 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and FISHER , C i rc u it Judge s, a nd W ILKEN, Se nior Distric t C ourt Judge . ** C hristina M . Lope z a

p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm i ng a n a dm inistra

tive la w judge ’ s (ALJ) de c ision tha t she wa s not disa

ble d a s of 

# FIL ED

OCT 28 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 irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

ble C la udia W ilke n, Unite d State s Se nior Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.Se pte m

be r 1, 2009. Lope zargue s tha t the ALJ e rre d

by im prope rly e va luating the m e dic a l e vide nc e and im

prope rly a sse ssing Lope z ’ s te stim ony to be le ss tha

n fully c re d ible . She c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a ffirm ing the ALJ’ s de c ision. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt. W e re v ie w de novo a

distric t c o urt’ s orde r upholding a de nia l of soc ia l se c urity be n e fits. Howa

rd e x re l. W olff v. B arnha rt, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th C ir. 2003). The ALJ’ s de c i sion m ust be uphe ld if it is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e an d ba s e d

upon thec o rre c t le ga l sta nda rds. Id. Substa

n tia l e vide nc e is m ore tha n a m e re sc intilla

but le ss tha

n a pre ponde ranc e . Id. “ [A] re vie wing c ourt m ust c o nside r the e ntire re c ord a s a whole and m ay

not a ffirm sim

ply by isola ting a spe c ific qua

ntum of supporting evide nc e .” R obbins v. Soc . Se c . Adm in., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). The ALJ prope rly

gave Dr. Lundin’ s opinion c ontrolling we ight. Dr. Lundin’ s opinions were ba se d on the surge ry

he pe rform e d on Lope z , x-ray s following the

surge ry and Lope z ’ s follow-up visits. The opinions were not c ontra dic te d by s ubsta

ntia l e vide nc e . Se e 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527(c )(2); Linge nfe lte r v. Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1038 n.10 (9th C ir. 2007). The ALJ ga

ve “ spe c i fic and le gitim ate re a sons tha t a re supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e ” whe n she gave le s s we ight to the c ontra dic t ory

opinions of Pa ge 2 of 4Lope z ’ s othe r tre ating phy sic i ans. B ay liss v. B arnha rt, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005). The ALJ prope rly ide ntifie d the opinions a s c onc lusory and ina d e quate ly

supporte d by

c linic a l findings, or ide

ntifie d othe r c le a

r a nd c onvinc i ng re a sons for disc ounting them . The ALJ did not err whe n she gave the te stify ing m e dic a l e xpe rt’ s opinion signific ant we i ght. The opinions of Dr. Lundin a nd Dr. B e rnarde z -Fu and othe r m e dic a l re c ords supporte d Dr. Gha z i’ s opinion. Lope z argue s tha t Dr. Ghaz i’ s opinion wa s c ontra dic te d by tre atm e n t note s from

he r phy sic a l the ra

pist. Howe ve r, to the e xte nt the phy sic a l the ra p y note s c ontra dic te d Dr. Gha z i ’ s opinion, the y we re c onc lusory

and did not provide be tte r supporting evide nc e or a be tte r e xpla

nation for the opinions they

provide d . Se e SSR

06-03p, 2006 SSR

LEXIS 5, *12-13 (Ja

n. 1, 2006). Fina lly , the ALJ prope rly found tha

t Lope z ’ s te s tim ony

wa s not c re d ible . The re we re m

ultipledisc re pa

n c ie s be twe e n Lope z ’ s te stim ony re g a rding he r lim ita tions a nd e vide nc e in the re c ord re ga rding he r a c tivitie s of da ily living. In a ddition, the ALJ c ite d se ve ra l insta nc e s in whic h Lope z te s tifie d to sy m ptom s a nd lim ita tions tha t we re c ontra dic te d by e vide nc e in the re c ord. Eve n if the ALJ’ s c onc lusion on som

e of those insta

nc e s wa s e rrone o us, tha

t would not “

ne gate the va lidity of the ALJ’ s ultim at e c re dibility c onc l usion,” whic h wa s supporte d by Pa ge 3 of 4othe r “ substa ntia l e vide n c e ” in the re c ord. C arm ic k le v. C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . Adm in., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th C ir. 2008). The ALJ prope rly

c onside re d the m e dic a l e v ide nc e and prope rly a sse sse d the c re d ibility

of Lope z ’ s te stim ony

whe n she found tha

t Lope z wa s not disa

ble d. AFFIRM E D.

Pa ge 4 of 4