N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TIM OTHY L. DEW EY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-36086 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-05788-JC C 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 John C . C oughe nour, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 4, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R and M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B UR Y, ** Se nior Distric t Judge . C la im ant Tim othy

De we y a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of C la im ant’ s a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. C la im a

n t a lle ge d 

# F IL ED MAY26 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation 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 Honora

ble David C . B ury , Unite d State s Se nior Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.disa

bility due to de g e ne ra tive disk dise a se in his lower spine , de pre ssion, c hronic pa in disorde r, and a

history of a lc ohol a

buse . At Ste p 5, the a dm inistra tive la w judge (ALJ) de te rm ine d tha t C la im ant c ould pe rform jobs tha t e xist in signific ant num be rs in the nationa l e c onom y . W e a ffirm . The ALJ did not err in we ighing them e d ic a l opinions. Se e Bay liss v
. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005). Thee xpe rt tre ating opinions we re c onsiste n t. Dr. La

ng c onsiste ntly

opine d tha

t C la im ant c ould re turn to work a fte r voc ationa l tra ining a

nd re a sona

ble a c c om

m odations. Dr. La

ng a nd Dr. Ada

rm e s a gre e d tha

t C la im ant wa s c a

pa ble of re turning to full-tim e light work. C la im ant points to no tre ating phy sic i an’ s opinion tha t c ontra dic ts the opinions of his prim ary tre ating phy sic ia

ns. The ALJ ga

ve a ppropria te re a sons to disc ount C la i m ant’ s a sse rte d lim ita tions. Se e Thomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th C ir. 2002); Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th C ir. 2007). TheALJ a nd the Appe a ls C o unc il disc re dite d the pa

rts of C la im ant’ s te stim ony c la im ing gre ate r lim ita

tions tha n those the C om

m issione r e v e ntua lly

a sse sse d in there s idua l func t iona l c a pa c ity finding. There c ord e sta

blishe s tha

t the ALJ thoroughly

c onside re d a

nd disc usse d C la im an t’ s te stim ony , a c c e pte d som e of it, a nd e xpla ine d why

he re j e c te d the re st. C la im an t pe rform e d a

full ra nge of da ily

a c tivitie s— inc luding a

tte n ding c olle ge 2full tim e —

that we re inc o n siste n t with his subje c tive c om p la ints, heim

prove d whe n he use d be hav ior m o d ific ation te c hnique s, a nd the obje c tive m e dic a l e vide nc e showe d tha

t he wa s not a s lim ite d a s he c la im e d. The ALJ prope rly disc ounte d C la i m ant’ s c re dibility to the e xte nt tha

t his subje c t ive c o m

pla ints we re inc o nsiste nt with his re

porte d a c tivitie s. The hy pothe tic a l pose d to the Voc ationa l Expe rt (VE) wa s c om ple t e and did not c onflic t with theDic tiona ry of Oc c upat iona l Title s (DOT). A c o nflic t m ust e xist be twe e n the VE’ s te stim ony and the DOT in orde r to trigge r the ALJ’ s re sponsibility

to re solve the c onflic t. He re , the DOT is silent on whe the r the jobs in que stion a llow for a

sit/sta nd option. Se e DOT 521.687-086 (sorte r), DOT 713.687-018 (a sse m

ble r). The re is no c onflic t . C f. Que c han Indian Tribe

v . U.S. De p’t of Labor , 723 F.2d 733, 735 (9th C ir. 1984). TheALJ c om plie d with the re quire m e nts of Soc ia l Se c urity R uling 83-12 in this c a se . Spe c ific a lly , he prope rly c onsulte d a

VE, who indic ate d tha

t the re we re jobs tha

t C la im a n t c ould pe rform e ve n though he re quire d a sit/sta nd option a

nd use of a

c ane to a m b ulate . The ALJ a lso c onfirm e d tha t the VE’ s te stim ony

did not de viate from

the DOT. The ALJ did not err by re l y ing upon the VE’ s te stim o ny . The Appe a ls C ounc il prope rly c onside re d the la

y te stim ony . Se e Stout v . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th C ir. 2006). The Appe a ls 3C ounc il sta

te d tha t C la im ant’ s full-tim e c olle ge atte nda nc e and othe r da ily a c tivitie s we re inc o nsiste nt with the la y witne ss’ te stim ony . Inc onsiste n c y with C la im an t’ s se lf-re porte d a c t ivitie s of da ily living wa s a spe c ific and ge rm ane re a s on for the Appe a ls C ounc il to disc ount he r te stim o ny . C a rmic k lev . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th C ir. 2008). Fina lly , the re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity finding re ste d on substa

ntia l e vide nc e , a

nd the c orre c t le ga l sta

nda rds we re a

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

4