NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN M. MCCLAIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 35662
D.C. No. 2:19

- cv - 01422

- JRC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington J. Richard Creatura, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2023 * *
Before: D. NELSON, SILVERMAN , and GRABER , Circuit Judges. Jonathan M. McClain appeals pro se the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo, Attmore v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 35662

Colvin , 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm. McClain’s contentions concerning the termination of his prior award of
benefits are not properly before us , because wher e he did not timely challenge the Commissioner’s earlier decision and does not raise a colorable claim of a due process violation. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ; Klemm v. Astrue , 543 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2008)

. The A dministrative L aw J udge ( “ ALJ ” ) did not ignore evidence or otherwise err in evaluating the medical record. See Ford v. Saul , 950 F.3d 1141, 11 56 (9th Cir. 2020) ( we must uphold the ALJ’s rational interpretation of the evidence) ; Garrison v. Colvin , 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (a n ALJ meets the
substantial evidence standard “by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating [her] interpretation thereof, and making findings”)

. The ALJ did not err by failing to develop the record, because the record was not ambiguous or “inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence.” See Tonapetyan v. Halter , 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001)

. The ALJ did not err at step three

. T he ALJ considered the effect of obesity on McClain’s impairments, and McClain did not make any argument concerning the combined effects of his impairments. See Ford , 950 F.3d at 11 57 (“[A]n ALJ is not required to discuss the combined effects of a claimant’s impairments or3 20

- 35662

compare them to any listing in an equivalency determination, unless the claimant presents evidence in an effort to establish equivalence.”)

. The ALJ provided specifi c and legitimate reasons to discount the opinions of treating physician Roland Feltner as inconsistent with his own treatment notes and recommendations, and as inconsistent with the opinion testimony of medical expert
Steven Goldstein. See Tommasetti v. A strue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1040

– 41 (9th Cir. 2008) (“incongruity” between physician’s opinion and his treatment notes was a specific and legitimate reason to discount the opinion) ; Rollins v. Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (discounting opinion where treatment notes did not include “the sort of description and recommendations one would expect to accompany a finding” of disability) ; Tonapetyan , 242 F.3d at 11 49 (a non

examining medical expert ’s opinion “may constitute substantial evidence when it is consistent with other independent evidence in the record” ). The ALJ did not err in formulating the residual functional capacity ( “ RFC ” ) , and s ubstantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RF C formulation. Bayliss v.
Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 121 7 (9th Cir. 2005) ( we will affirm the ALJ’s RFC determination where the ALJ “applied the proper legal standard and [her] decision is supported by substantial evidence”)

. The ALJ proffered specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount McClain’s symptom testimony as inconsistent with and unsupported by the4 20

- 35662

medical record

. See Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject a claimant’s subjective testimony as inconsistent with the medical record); Burch v. Barnhardt , 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may consider a lack of corroborating evidence as one factor in the credibility determination). Any error in the ALJ’s ad ditional reasons was
harmless. See Ford , 950 F.3d at 11 54 (error is harmless where it is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination). Because the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to disc ount McClain’s testimony, the ALJ did not err in rejecting the similar lay witness evidence relying on the same reasons. See Valentine v. Comm ’ r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009)

. We reject McClain’s contention that the ALJ erred by failing to appoint counsel, because the ALJ met her duty of notifying McClain of options for obtaining an attorney. S

ee 42 U.S.C. § 40 6(c)

. Any error in the date of McClain’s hearing on remand was harmless. See McLeod v. Astrue , 640 F.3d 881, 887

- 88 (9th Cir. 2011) (“ [T] he party seeking reversal must explain how the error caused harm

. ”).
AFFIRMED.