FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THERESA BRADBURY, No. 13-36154
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05146-JCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2015**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Theresa Bradbury appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
*
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).
Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and affirm.
Bradbury contends that her credible testimony about her functional
limitations establishes that she cannot work. This contention is unpersuasive
because the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) provided specific, clear, and
convincing reasons supporting the adverse credibility finding. See Smolen v.
Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussing factors considered in
evaluating credibility).
Bradbury also contends that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the medical
opinions of the consulting medical examiners when determining Bradbury’s
residual functional capacity. The ALJ provided a reasonable and sufficient
rationale in evaluating the medical opinions and determining that Bradbury can
perform light unskilled and some semi-skilled work despite her impairments. See
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that this court
will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when the evidence is susceptible to more than
one rational interpretation).
AFFIRMED.
2