FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 01 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE L. EDGINTON, No. 14-55237
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:12-cv-02195-JSL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 26, 2015 **
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Bruce L. Edginton appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Edginton’s applications for disability
insurance and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social
*
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).
Security Act. Edginton alleged disability due to back problems, pain disorder, and
bipolar disorder. 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.
1. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ’s”)
decision to rely on the vocational expert’s analysis of the job market. First, the
ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s expertise to explain complex
vocational issues. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(e); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d
1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an ALJ may rely on the vocational
expert’s testimony regarding number of relevant jobs). Second, the vocational
expert reasonably opined that Edginton’s alternative job calculation was not
correct, and the ALJ was within his discretion to credit the expert’s conclusions.
See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that an ALJ is
responsible for resolving conflicts). Finally, the ALJ allowed Edginton’s attorney
the opportunity to respond by leaving the record open for Edginton to submit
additional evidence. See Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1999)
(holding that an ALJ satisfies the duty to develop the record by leaving the record
open after a hearing). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
adoption of the vocational expert’s testimony.
2
2. The ALJ provided a specific, clear, and convincing reason for finding
Edginton’s descriptions of his symptoms less than fully credible. The ALJ
reasonably concluded that Edginton’s treatment for his back condition was
“routine and conservative” and not the treatment expected for an individual
suffering from the disabling symptoms that Edginton described. Edginton was
generally treated with medications and an electronic transcutaneous electrical nerve
stimulation unit for his condition. The ALJ properly identified Edginton’s
conservative treatment for his alleged disabling pain as a specific, clear, and
convincing reason for doubting Edginton’s credibility concerning the intensity of
the pain. See Parra, 481 F.3d at 751 (stating that evidence of conservative
treatment may be “sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity
of an impairment”).
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Edginton was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
AFFIRMED.
3