N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VER ONIC A JONES,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-36099 D.C . No. 6:13-c v-00843-B R
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 Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 27, 2017 **
B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd TR OTT a

nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Ve ronic a Jone s a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s a ffirm anc e of the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a p plic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r Title s II and XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. 

# FIL ED DEC 29 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).§ 1291 a

nd 42 U.S.C . § 405(g). W e re vie w de novo, Attmore v . C olv in , 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th C ir. 2016), a nd we a ffirm
. The a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) did not e rr in disc ounting Jone s’ te stim ony c onc e rning the e xte nt of he r sy m ptom s and the ir lim iting e ffe c ts. The ALJ a pplie d the re quisitetwo-ste p fram e work a nd c ite d spe c i fic , c l e ar, and
c onvinc i ng re a sons for disc ounting portions of Jone s’ te stim ony . Se e Tre v izo v
. Be rry h ill , 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th C ir. 2017). TheALJ c ite d e vide nc e tha t Jone s ha d stoppe d working dueto a la y -off ra t he r tha n for he a lth re a sons, Jone s ha d
a ppe are d to e xa gge ra te he r sy m ptom s a nd the ir e ffe c ts, Jone s’ c ourse of tre atm e nt
wa s re lative ly

c onse rvative , Jone s ha d fa ile d to se e k and c om ply with m e dic a l tre a tm e n t for som e of he r a lle ge d sy m ptom s, a nd Jone s ’ sy

m ptom s we re a lle viate d
or c ontrolle d whe n she did follow her pre sc ribe d tre atm e nt. Although Jone s a lle ge s se ve ra l e rrors c onc e rning theALJ’ s re a sons for disc ounting he r te stim o ny , the y a ll la c k m e rit. W

hile Jone s ta

ke s issue with the ALJ’ s re lia

nc e on he r fa ilure to se e k a djustm e nts to he r C PAP m a c hine de spite he r tre a tm e n ts provide rs’ a d

vic e , arguing shec ould not ta ke this a dditiona l a c tion be c a use she c ould not m ana ge he r own a c tivitie s of da ily living, he r re porte d da ily
a c tivitie s a

n d a bility to ke e p he r doc tors’ a

p pointm e n ts during this tim e c ontra dic t he r argum e nt.
2Jone s’ obje c tion to the ALJ inc l uding his own obse rvations tha

t Jone s wa s
a ble to sit through the

e ntire he aring without c ha nging position or displa

y ing signs of pa in a lso fa i ls. W

hile an “ ALJ’ s obse rvations of a c la im an t’ s func tioning m ay not form the sole ba sis for disc re diting a pe rson’ s te stim ony ,” the y m ay be use d in

“ the ove ra ll e va luation of theindividual’ s sta te m e nts,” a s the ALJ did he re . Se e Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 639–40 (9th C ir. 2007) (c ita tion omitte d ). The ALJ a lso re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t de spite Jone s’ te stim ony tha t she
use s a wa lke r, she wa s not pre sc ribe d one , a s the m e dic a l re c ord indic ate s he r phy sic a l the ra

pist re c om

m e nde d she use a

wa lke r for e x e rc ise s a s pa rt of he r tre a tm e n t pla

n, rathe r tha

n a s a de vic e to a ssist with m

o bility . W e “ m ay

not e nga ge in se c ond-gue ssing” the ALJ’ s c re dibility inte rpre tat ion whe re it re sts upon a
re a s ona ble inte rpre tation of there c ord. Se e Thomas v
. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th C i r. 2002). La stly , e ve n if the ALJ wa s m ista ke n in his sta

te m e nt tha

t the re c ord doe s not show Jone s m i sse d a

ny m e d ic a l a

ppointm e nts due to he r a lle ge d forge tfulne ss, this e rror wa s ha

rm le ss, a s the ALJ’ s othe r re a s ons for disc o unting he r te stim ony re m a in supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Bray

v . C omm’r Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th C ir. 2009).

3The ALJ did not err by disc o unting theopinion of e xam ining phy sic ia n Dr. C oe lho in fa

vor of c onsulting phy sic ia n Dr. B e rne r’ s opinion. An “ A L J m ay re je c t the t e stim ony

of a n e xam ining, but non-tre ating phy sic ia n, in fa vor of a
none xam ining, nontre ating phy sic ia n whe n he give s spe c ific , le gitim at e re a sons for doing so, a

nd those re a sons a

re supporte d by

substa n tia l re c o rd e vide nc e .” R obe rts
v . Shalala , 66 F.3d 179, 184 (9th C ir. 1995). TheALJ prope rly supporte d his
e va luation of this me dic a l e v i de nc e by pointing out how Dr. C oe lho’ s opinion
c onflic te d with theALJ’ s own obse rvations of thec la i m ant a nd with other obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e in the re c ord. The ALJ a lso did not err by disc ounting the e vide nc e from

e xam ining psy c hologist Dr. R

om an. The ALJ proffe re d spe c i fic and le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord for re je c ting Dr. Rom an’ s c ontra dic te d opinion, inc luding inc onsiste nc ie s within Dr. R om an’ s e vide nc e , inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n this opinion a nd othe r m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord, a nd inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n Jone s’ own te stim ony and Dr. R om an’ s opinion. Se e Tre v izo , 871 F.3d a

t 675. TheALJ’ s inte rpre tation tha t the opinion of Dr. R

om an, who a ssigne d Jone s a

Globa l Asse ssm e nt of Func tioning (“ GAF” ) sc ore of 50 a nd
c onc lude d Jone s de m onstra t e d se rious sy

m p tom s, c onflic te d with theopinion of Dr. Sc hur, who found Jone s ha d a GAF sc ore of 55 a

nd displa y e d only m ode ra te
4sym

ptom s, wa s re a sona

ble . The re fore , we uphold the ALJ’ s inte rpre tation. Se e Ry an v . C omm’r Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th C ir. 2008). De spite Jone s ’ argum e nts to thec ontra ry , the ALJ did not c he rry -pic k isola te d e xam ple s of im prove m e nt of Jone s’ sy

m ptom s a s e vide nc e tha

t c o ntra dic ts Dr. R om an’ s opinion. The insta nc e s the ALJ pointe d to spa nne d se ve ra l m onths. Furthe rm ore , se ve ra l c o unte r e xam p le s Jone s c ite s a

re of lim ite d re le va

n c e be c a use two pre date he r a lle g e d disa bility onse t da te and one involve s a pe riod whe n Jone s ha d run out of he r de p re ssion m e dic ation. Se e C armic k lev . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1164–65 (9th C ir. 2008). In short, the ALJ fulfille d his obliga

tion to re solve c onflic ting m e dic a l e vide n c e in Jone s’ re c ord, s e e Tommase tti v
. Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041–42 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd we uphold his ra

tiona l inte rpre tation of the e vide nc e , se e Ry an , 528 F.3d a t 1198. AFFIRM E D.

5