FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 10 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANCY G. ASH, No. 14-35475
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02017-RE
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
James A. Redden, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2017**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Nancy G. Ash appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d
1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The administrative law judge (ALJ) did not err in finding that Ash’s
testimony about her pain and other symptoms was “less than credible.” The ALJ
provided two specific, clear and convincing reasons for her credibility finding by
referring to (1) medical evidence that was inconsistent with Ash’s testimony and
(2) evidence that Ash’s medications had been “relatively effective” in controlling
her symptoms. See Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th
Cir. 2015); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). Any error in
the ALJ’s third reason—Ash’s failure to receive the medical care one would expect
for a totally disabled individual— was therefore harmless in light of the two other,
valid reasons for the ALJ’s credibility finding. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1122.
Ash contends that the ALJ’s credibility finding was inadequate because the
ALJ used circular reasoning in finding that Ash’s statements were not credible “to
the extent they [were] inconsistent with the . . . residual functional capacity
assessment.” This contention lacks merit because the ALJ proceeded to give
specific reasons for the credibility finding. See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014).
2
Further, the ALJ erred in failing to address the lay witness’s statement, but
this error was harmless because the witness did not describe any limitations beyond
those that Ash described herself. See Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1165; Molina, 674 F.3d
at 1122.
AFFIRMED.
3