+Corrected 1/5/17 FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 04 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CYNTHIA RUCKDASHEL, No. 15-35235
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:13-cv-02065-MC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 30, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.+
Cynthia Ruckdashel appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability
*
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).
insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and
XVI of the Social Security Act. At step five of the sequential analysis, the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined that Ruckdashel could perform jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. 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 ALJ did not err in rejecting the contradicted opinion of treating
physician Jeffrey K. Bert that Ruckdashel’s impairments prevented her from
working. The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by
substantial evidence, for rejecting Dr. Bert’s opinion by stating that Dr. Bert’s
opinion was conclusory, contradicted by the objective medical evidence, and relied
heavily upon Ruckdashel’s subjective reports regarding the severity of her
disability. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th
Cir. 2009). Moreover, because Dr. Bert’s report was not inadequate to make a
determination of disability, the ALJ did not err by failing to request additional
information from Dr. Bert. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir.
2002) (“[T]he requirement for additional information is triggered only when the
evidence from the treating medial source is inadequate to make a determination to
the claimant’s disability.”).
2 15-35235
The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for partially rejecting
Ruckdashel’s testimony by stating that Ruckdashel worked full time with her
impairments for several years without issue and her course of treatment was
relatively conservative. See Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir.
1995) (evidence of conservative treatment is sufficient to discount a claimant’s
testimony regarding severity of an impairment); Gregory v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 664,
666-67 (9th Cir. 1988) (ALJ may consider a claimant’s prior ability to work with
an impairment when evaluating the alleged limiting effect of that impairment).
The ALJ provided germane reasons for only giving some weight to the
opinions of lay witnesses Joseph Evans and Sharilyn Brown by stating that the
opinions were largely accounted for in the residual functional capacity finding.
See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114 (ALJ must give reasons that are germane to each
witness to discount competent lay witness testimony).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-35235