Case Name: Chanel EPPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-12
Citations: 472 F. App'x 649
Docket Number: No. 10-56776
Parties: Chanel EPPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 649–651

Head Matter:
Chanel EPPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-56776.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 9, 2012.
Filed April 12, 2012.
Thomas Garrett Roche, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Theophous H. Reagans, II, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S., Kathryn R. Watson, SSA-Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Thomas C. Stahl, Chief Counsel, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chanel Epps appeals the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She argues that the administrative law judge erred by ignoring the opinion of her treating psychiatrist. We disagree. While the ALJ does not mention the treating psychiatrist by name, he repeatedly cites and discusses the psychiatrist's medical reports. Moreover, the ALJ's finding that Epps's "symptoms appear to be adequately controlled with prescribed treatment" is based upon and consistent with the treating psychiatrist's treatment records. Thus, the ALJ did not reject the treating physician's ultimate conclusions. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 831 (9th Cir.1995). Substantial evidence in the whole record supports the ALJ's decision.
Epps also argues that the ALJ did not adequately analyze and present to the vocational expert limitations deriving from Epps's mental impairments. To the extent the ALJ erred, such error was harmless. See Curry v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.1990). Although the ALJ did not present Epps's alleged mental impairments to the vocational expert, all the jobs identified by the expert were unskilled and therefore consistent with Epps's residual functional capacity. Based on her psychiatrist's conclusions, her mental impairments would not affect the vocational expert's conclusion, because they were well controlled by medication. Thus, no reasonable ALJ could have concluded that Epps could not perform the jobs identified by the vocational expert. See Stout v. Comm'r, 454 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.