FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOYCE REDMOND, No. 14-35990
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01646-JPD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James P. Donohue II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2016**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Joyce Redmond appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Redmond’s application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Redmond alleged
*
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).
disability due to degenerative disc disease, obstructive sleep apnea, myofascial
pain, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and obesity. 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 we affirm.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) provided specific, clear, and
convincing reasons for finding that Redmond was not fully credible. First, the ALJ
permissibly relied on Redmond’s inconsistent statements, primarily concerning her
ability to walk, in finding her not fully credible. Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133,
1137-38 (9th Cir. 2014). Second, the ALJ properly relied on Redmond’s
conservative level of treatment in finding her less than fully credible concerning
her alleged total disability. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007)
(holding that evidence of conservative treatment may be “sufficient to discount a
claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment”).
The ALJ was not required to obtain additional testimony from a medical
expert. Redmond’s contention - that the ALJ erred by not calling a medical expert
to interpret the significance of imaging studies of Redmond’s spine in October
2011 - is without merit. The record shows that the ALJ considered the 2011
imaging studies, and the ALJ was within her purview in analyzing and weighing
the evidence. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 681.
2
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Redmond was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
AFFIRMED.
3