N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR I M ALLOY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-35400 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01488-B AT 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 B rian Tsuc h ida , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 3, 2016 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , GOULD, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . M ari M a lloy

a ppe a ls the distric 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 be ne fits 

# FIL ED OCT 27 2016 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd a ffirm . 1. The a dm inistra

tive la w judge (ALJ) de nie d M a lloy ’ s re que st for a c onsulta tive e va luation a

nd found M a lloy

not disa ble d. The ALJ found tha t M a l loy did not ha

ve a se ve re m e nta l he a lth im

pa irm e nt a

n d de te rm ine d M a lloy ’ s re sidua l func t iona l c a

pa c ity (RFC ) to be suc h tha t she c ould pe rform

light work without c onc e ntrate d

e xposure to he ights or ha z ards. The ALJ found M a lloy to be not c re dible , a

nd ga ve m inim a l we ight to la

y witne ss te stim ony

of M a lloy ’ s husba n d, siste r, da

ughte r, and frie nd. The ALJ re lie d on a voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony tha t the re we re jobs in the nationa l e c onom y tha t one c ould pe rform

with the d e sc ribe d R

FC , a s we ll a s a

n R FC of se de nta

ry work limite d to oc c a siona l posturing a

nd no useof la dde rs, rope , or sc a ffolding, a nd a voiding c onc e ntrate d e xposure to he ights or ha

z a rds. 2. M a lloy

argue s tha

t the ALJ ha d

to providea

c onsulta tive psy c hologic a l e va luat ion. “ [T] he ALJ ha s a spe c ia l duty

to fully and fa irly

de ve lop the re c ord a

nd to a ssure tha

t the c la im ant’ s inte re sts a re c onside re d.” B row n v . He c k le r , 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th C ir. 1983). B ut the “ duty to c onduc t a

n a ppropria te inquiry ” is trigge re d “ whe n the re is a m biguous e vide n c e or whe n the re c o rd is ina de quate to a llow for prope r e va luat ion of thee vide nc e .” Mc Le o d v . 2Astrue , 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th C ir. 2011). He re , the re c ord wa s ne ithe r am biguous nor ina de quat e to pe rm it the ALJ to m ake a prope r e va luation, a

nd inde e d c onta ine d the re sults of two psyc hologic a l e va luat ions pe rform e d a fte r the date la st insure d. 3. M a lloy

argue s tha

t the ALJ e rre d in giving only lim i te d we i ght to the la y witne sse s’ sta

t e m e nts of he r re lative s and a frie n d. Ge n e ra lly , “ an ALJ m ust c onside r la

y witne ss te stim ony

c onc e rning a

c la im a nt’ s a b ility to work.” Stout v . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th C ir. 2006); se e also 20 C .F.R . § 404.1513(d)(4). B ut a

n “ ALJ m ay

e xpre ssly disre ga rd la y te stim ony if the ALJ

‘ g ive s re a sons ge rm ane to e a c h witne ss for doing so.’ ” Turne r v . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin , 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th C ir. 2010). TheALJ ga ve ge rm ane re a sons for giving little

we i ght to the la

y witne ss sta

te m e nts, inc l uding inc onsiste n c y with the m e dic a l re c ord a

nd with M a lloy ’ s re porte d a c tivitie s. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the se re a sons. 4. M a lloy

c ha lle nge s the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation tha t she wa s not c re dible .

“ For the ALJ to re

je c t t he c la im ant’ s c om

pla ints, shem

ust provide‘ spe c ific , c oge nt re a sons for thedisbe lie f.’ ” Leste r v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th C ir. 1995) (quoting Rashad v . Sullivan , 903 F.2d 1229, 1231 (9th C i r. 1990)). Abse nt e vide nc e of m a linge ring, “ the C om m issione r’ s re a s ons for re je c ting thec l a im ant’ s 3te stim ony

m ust be ‘ c le a

r and c onvinc ing.’ ” Id. (quoting Sw e n son v . Sullivan , 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th C ir. 1989)). B ut he re the ALJ ga ve spe c ific , c oge nt re a sons for disbe lie ving M a lloy ’ s te stim ony on the se ve rity , pe rsiste nc e , a nd limiting e ffe c ts of he r sym

ptom s, suc h a s inc onsiste nc ie s with them e dic a l re c ords a nd he r re porte d a c tivitie s. S

e e Thomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 958–59 (9th C ir. 2002). The ALJ c ould re a sona

bly find M a l loy

not c re dible . 1 5. M a lloy

a sse rts tha

t it wa s e rror for the ALJ to re je c t he r c l a im

at ste p two of thefive -ste p disa

b i lity de te rm ination se que nc e , tha t he r m e nta l he a lth lim ita tions c onstitute d

a se ve re im

pa irm e nt. “ [An] im

pa irm e nt m

ust re sult from anatom i c a l, phy siologic a l, or psy c h ologic a l a bnorm a l itie s whic h c an be shown by m e dic a l ly a c c e pta ble c linic a l a

nd la boratory dia gnostic te c hnique s. A phy sic a l or m e nta l im pa irm e nt m

ust be e s ta

blishe d by

m e dic a l e vide nc e c onsisting of signs, sym ptom s, a nd la boratory findings, not only

by [the c laimant’s] state me nt of sy mptoms .” 20 C .F.R . § 404.1508 (e m p h a sis a dde d ). The re c ord showe d

“ m inim a l and inc onsiste nt tre atm e nt” for any psy c hologic a l sy

m ptom s M a lloy

m a y have e xpe rie nc e d. W e do not ta ke on the role of the ALJ, in we ighing dispute d

1 The distric t c ourt he ld tha t a n ALJ sta te m e nt tha

t M a lloy ha d e n ga ge d in drug-se e king be havior wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . W e a gre e , but be c a use the ALJ ga

ve othe r spe c ific , c oge nt re a sons for finding M a lloy not c re d ible , this e rror wa s inc onse que ntia l. Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2008). 4e vide nc e . Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th C i r. 2012). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the

ALJ’ s ste p-two finding. 6. M a lloy

a lso c onte nds tha

t the ALJ e rre d in finding tha t M a lloy c ould pe rform light work so long a s she avoide d c onc e ntrat e d e xposure to he ights a nd ha z ards. She c onte nds the ALJ e rre d in re je c t ing the c onc lusions of two none xam ining c onsulta

nt s tha t M a l loy wa s lim ite d

to se de nta

ry work. The ALJ e xpla ine d tha

t the m e d ic a l e vide nc e c ontra dic te d the c onsulta nts’ c onc lusions, c iting findings tha

t M a lloy ’ s lum

ba r and c e rvic a l spine displa y e d only m ild de ge ne rative c ha

nge s, a s we ll a s M a l loy ’ s c onsiste nt pre se ntation of norm a l a rm stre ngth, le g func t ioning, gait, ra nge of e xtre m ity

and ne c k m o tion, a

nd m otor a

n d se nsory func tion. It wa s not e rror to disre ga rd the c onc lusions upon whic h M a lloy re lie s ba se d

on this c ontra d i c tory

obje c tive e vide nc e . Batson v . C o mm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th C ir. 2004). And e v e n if M a l loy wa s lim ite d to se de nta ry work, the voc ationa l e xpe rt ide ntifie d two jobs for which M a lloy is qua lifie d a

nd c ould pe rform . 7. M a lloy

c onte nds tha

t the ALJ im

prope rly disre ga rde d he r c la im e d none xe rtiona l lim ita

tions, suc h a s pa in a

nd c ognitiveissue s. B ut tha t e vide nc e wa s ba se d on he r re porting. TheALJ prope rly found M a l loy wa s not c re dible , and so did not e rr in re

je c ting he r c la im s of none xe rtiona l lim i tations. 58. M a lloy ’ s othe r argum e nts a re without me rit. AFFIRM ED.

6