FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 11 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOYCE ANN BIGGS, No. 12-17498
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00692-CMK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 9, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Joyce Biggs appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the ALJ’s denial
of her application for social security disability benefits. The ALJ followed the
five-step process and found her not disabled at step five, because significant jobs
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
existed in the national economy that Biggs could still perform. Reviewing the
ALJ’s findings for substantial evidence, Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214
n.1 (9th Cir. 2005), we affirm.
Biggs first contends that the ALJ erred by failing to resolve conflicts in the
medical opinion testimony. We disagree. As the district court correctly
concluded, the ALJ thoroughly reviewed the expert testimony and laid out specific
and objective reasons for crediting the agency physician. See Magallanes v.
Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989).
Biggs next challenges the ALJ’s finding that her testimony was not credible.
Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Biggs exaggerated her
symptoms. The ALJ’s credibility finding was supported by medical testimony and
other evidence. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting
that where “the ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence, the court ‘may
not engage in second-guessing’” (internal citation omitted)).
Substantial evidence likewise supported the ALJ’s ultimate determination
that Biggs had the residual functional capacity to perform light unskilled work.
The ALJ properly relied on the testimony of the state agency physician and the
vocational expert, as well as other record evidence.
2
Finally, the Appeals Council did not err by declining to conduct further
review of Biggs’s case, because the new evidence submitted by Biggs did not
affect the ALJ’s conclusion as to her ability to perform light unskilled work.
AFFIRMED.
3