Case Name: Christina M. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-17
Citations: 627 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 13-36012
Parties: Christina M. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Christina M. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-36012.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 17, 2015.
Eitan Kassel Yanich, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kerry Keefe, Esquire, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Jeffrey Eric Staples, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Christina M. Chappell appeals the district court's decision affirming the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits. We affirm.
The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") did not err at steps four and five, as she gave specific, legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence for giving greater weight to non-examining sources than to treating and examining sources; specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding Chappell's testimony not credible; and germane reasons for rejecting Chappell's mother's lay testimony. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111-14 (9th Cir.2012).
Although the ALJ erred at step three by relying on Dr. Moore's testimony to find that Chappell did not meet Listing 12.04's paragraph C criteria when Dr. Moore did not specifically testify about the paragraph C criteria, the error was harmless in light of the other evidence in the record. See id. at 1115.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.