NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD NORTON, No. 17-35772
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05641-JCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 27, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Edward Norton appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner
of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(Act). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We
review de novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we
affirm.
We reject Norton’s contention that the ALJ committed harmful error at step
two by failing to list chronic pain syndrome or mild sacroiliac arthritis as severe
impairments. Because the ALJ resolved this step in Norton’s favor, and considered
all of Norton’s pain and mental health symptoms in formulating the residual
function capacity, any error was harmless. See Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040,
1048-49 (9th Cir. 2017).
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons to reject the controverted
opinions of two medical doctors as to Norton’s physical limitations and four
mental health professionals as to Norton’s mental limitations. See Garrison v.
Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2014). We reject Norton’s contention that
the ALJ’s stated reasons are not sufficiently specific. The ALJ set out the
conflicting medical evidence, stated his interpretation, made findings, and referred
to these findings in discounting the medical opinions. See id. Substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s findings that the physical limitations assessed by Dr. Staker and
Dr. Cogan were inconsistent with the record and unsupported by objective medical
evidence. Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s findings that the mental
limitations assessed by Dr. Wheeler, Dr. Brown, Dr. Higgins, and Dr. Neims were
2
inconsistent with the record and with Norton’s activities.
The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discredit
Norton’s testimony, including a lack of corroborating medical evidence and
inconsistencies between Norton’s testimony and his activities. See id. at 1014–15
(citation omitted). Because the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons to
discredit Norton’s testimony, he did not err in rejecting the similar testimony of
several lay witnesses based on “the same reasons.” Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3