NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEANINE T. LEWIS, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 35193 D.C. No. 3:14

- cv - 05626

- BHS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 24 , 2018 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges Jeanine Lewis appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Securi ty’s denial of Lewis’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the

* 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

JAN 26 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 35193 Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Ghanim v. Colvin , 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm. The limitation to “low background noise” was a reasonable interpretation of Dr. Scoones’s opinion that Lewis would have problems hearing “in varied levels of ambient noise.” See Stubbs

- Danielson v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 117 4 ( 9th Cir. 2008) (requiring this C ourt to defer to the ALJ when substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assessment of specific functional limitations based on the available medical evidence). The ALJ’s typographical error, omitting the word “no” from “req uiring [no] public contact,” is harmless. See Molina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (error is harmless when it is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s interpretation of the medical records from Dr. Scoones, and the ALJ properly included all relevant limitations in the residual functional capacity (RFC)
assessment. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 359 F.3d 119 0, 1197

- 98 (9th Cir. 2004). The ALJ did not err in relying on the Vocational Expert’s (VE) testimony because the ALJ properly included in the hypothetical all limitations from the RFC that were supported by substantial evidence, and the VE did not testify that any additional limitations or accommodations were required in order for Lewis to perform any jobs. Bayliss v. Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).3 15

- 35193 The ALJ properly gave relatively more weight to the medical record than to the statement of the claimant’s husband

. See Bayliss , 427 F.3d at 1218 (holding that the ALJ properly discredited lay testimony based on inconsistencies with the medical evidence); Lewis v. Apfel , 236 F.3d 503, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (concluding that inconsistencies between l ay testimony and claimant testimony are a germane reason to discredit lay testimony). Any error in relying on additional reasons was harmless because the ALJ provided other germane reasons to discredit the lay testimony

. See Molina , 674 F.3d at 1122. The A LJ properly rejected Lewis’s testimony based on clear and convincing reasons, including lack of objective medical evidence to support her subjective claims, inconsistencies between Lewis’s testimony and her ability to work in the past despite her limitatio ns, inconsistencies between Lewis’s allegation of disability and her statement that she continued looking for work after her alleged onset of disability, and inconsistencies between Lewis’s testimony and activities. See Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 613 F .3d 1217, 12 25 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the ALJ reasonably discredited claimant testimony based on the claimant’s ability to perform past work despite their impairments); Orn v. Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the ALJ can discredit claimant testimony based on daily activities that are inconsistent with the alleged severity of the claimant’s symptoms); Burch v. Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005)4 15

- 35193 (explaining that the ALJ cannot rely only on a lack of objective evide nce to discredit claimant testimony but it is a relevant factor that the ALJ can consider); Bruton v. Massanari , 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2001) ( including the claimant’s stated reasons for leaving past work in the reasons that the ALJ properly considere d in discrediting claimant testimony). AFFIRMED.Le w is v . Be rry h ill , No. 15-35193

THOM AS, C hie f Judge , disse nting:
I re spe c tfully

disse nt. The ALJ e rre d in he r disc ussions of the c l a im a nt’ s

c re d ibility

a nd la y te stim ony . B e c a

use the e rrors we re pe rva sive a nd m a te ria l, I would re ve rse a nd re m a nd for furthe r proc e e dings. To prope rly

disc re dit Le w is’ s te stim ony , the ALJ wa s re quire d to provide

c le a r a n d c onvinc ing re a s ons supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Vasque

z v
. Astrue , 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th C ir. 2009). The ALJ fa ile d to do so. The ALJ did
not e xpla in how Le wis’ s a bility to work prior to the

onse t of ne a r-de a fne ss wa s inc o nsiste nt with he r te stim ony tha t la te r c om m unic a tion diffic ultie s trigge re d he r fibrom y a lgia a n d a nxie ty

. Burre ll v . C

olv in , 775 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th C ir. 2014). Sim ila rly , she fa ile d to e xpla in how Le wis’ s a bility to pe rform da ily

a c tivitie s

a lone or with a ssista

nc e wa s inc onsiste nt with he r te stim o ny . Id. Nor did the ALJ de te rm i ne tha

t Le w is’ s da i ly

a c tivitie s tra

nsla te d to the workpla c e . Orn v . Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th C ir. 2007). The ALJ furthe r e rre d by disc re diting Le wis on the b a sis of he r unsuc c e ssful se a rc h for e m ploy m e n t a fte r the a lle ge d onse t da te , a s the c la i m a nt’ s ina

b i lity to find e m

ploy m e nt doe s not sugge st the a bse nc e of disa bility . Fina lly , the re m a ining re a son give n to disc re d it Le wis— a la c k of obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e

— c a nnot, a s a m a tte r of la

w, justify a n a dve rse 

# FIL ED

JAN 26 2018
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALSc re d ibility

ra ting. Burc h v . Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th C ir. 2005). The ALJ

e rre d in disc re diting Le wis’ s te stim ony . The ALJ a lso ga

ve fa c tua lly

a nd le ga lly

e rrone ous re a sons to lim it he r

c onside ra tion of the te stim ony of the c la im a nt’ s husba n d. The ALJ e rre d in disc re diting his te stim ony be c a u se of his c lose fa m ilia l re la tionship with Le wis. Vale ntine v . C omm’r of Soc

. Se c . Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th C ir. 2009). The ALJ a lso e rre d in disc re diting his te stim ony due to inc onsiste nc y

with Le w is’ s own
te stim ony be c a use he r de te rm ina tion wa s not supporte d by substa n tia l e vide nc e . Le wis’ s te stim o n y

tha t she did not run e rra nds a lone due to c om m unic a t ion diffic u ltie s did not c onflic t with he r husba nd’ s te stim ony tha t she wa l ke d the ir dog

a lone on the be a c h whe n the re wa s no possibility of inte ra c tion with othe

rs. I would hold tha

t the e rrors in the a ge nc y

de c ision a

re not ha rm le ss a n d

re ve rse the distric t c ourt. The “ c irc um sta nc e s of [this] c a se show a substa n tia l like lihood of pre

judic e , [a nd] re m a nd is a

ppropria te so tha t the a ge nc y

c a n de c ide whe the r re -c onside ra tion is ne c e ssa ry .” Mc Le o d v . Astrue , 640 F.3d 881, 888 (9th C ir. 2011). The re fore , I re spe c tfully disse n t.