Case Name: Todd C. YASUDA, 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: 2012-06-11
Citations: 473 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 10-17611
Parties: Todd C. YASUDA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 787–788

Head Matter:
Todd C. YASUDA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 10-17611.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2012.
Filed June 11, 2012.
Joel F. Friedman, Esquire, Jerome, Gibson, Stewart, Friedman, Stevenson, Engle & Runbeck, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Michael A. Johns, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, Pamela Margaret Wood, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration General Counsel’s Office, Region VIII, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: THOMAS, FISHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The ALJ's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including reports that Yasuda's condition had improved with medication and descriptions of activities of daily living indicating reasonable functioning on a daily basis. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1995).
The ALJ did not err in relying on Dr. Fair's and Dr. Gallucci's translations of Yasuda's limitations (including the moderate limitations in areas of sustained concentration and persistence identified by Dr. House) into concrete work restrictions. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2008). Therefore, the ALJ did not err in determining that Yasuda had the residual functional capacity to perform "simple, unskilled work," nor was this determination inconsistent with Dr. House's findings. See id. Program Operations Manual System Section DI 25020.010 is not to the contrary, as it provides guidance with respect to more extensive limitations than those identified by the relevant medical evidence.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.