Case Name: Susan C. DEAN, 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: 2013-11-15
Citations: 545 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 12-35689
Parties: Susan C. DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 545
Pages: 617–617

Head Matter:
Susan C. DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-35689.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2013.
Filed Nov. 15, 2013.
Martin Richard Cohen, Linda Susan Zis-kin, Ziskin Law Office, Lake Oswego, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, Mathew W. Pile, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Susan Dean appeals a district court judgment that affirmed the decision of the Social Security Commissioner denying her claim for Supplemental Social Security Income disability benefits (SSI). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. Dean claims that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by rejecting lay witness testimony without giving specific and legitimate reasons germane to the witness. See Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir.2009). The ALJ, however, expressly stated that she discounted Ms. Prettyman's statement because it was contradicted by Dean's own allegations and the medical evidence.
2. Dean also claims that the ALJ erred because she did not adequately consider her step 3 finding that Dean has "a moderate restriction in her concentration, persistence, and pace" in the Residual Function Capacity finding and vocational hypothetical at steps 4 and 5. To the contrary, the ALJ expressly adopted the restriction identified in the medical testimony, which took into account Dean's nonexertional limitations. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.2008).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.