FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT J. COLE, No. 11-35814
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00068-SEH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 7, 2012 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and BLACK ***, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Susan H. Black, Senior United States Circuit Judge for
the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
Appellant Robert J. Cole (Cole) challenges the district court’s judgment
upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Cole’s application for
supplemental security income. We affirm the district court’s judgment.
Because the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was supported by
the medical evidence and was consistent with the conclusions of Cole’s treating
doctors, there was no need to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the
treating doctor’s opinions. See Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217,
1223 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that “the ALJ need not provide ‘clear and convincing
reasons’ for rejecting [a doctor’s report]” where the ALJ did not reject the doctor’s
opinions).
Because Cole does not point to any conflicting medical evidence, the ALJ’s
finding that Cole was not disabled due to his visual impairments was reasonably
supported by the objective medical evidence. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that “we may not
substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. . . .”) (citation omitted).
Based on Cole’s daily activities, the ALJ provided the requisite specific
findings in rejecting Cole’s testimony concerning the severity of his symptoms.
See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Bray v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In reaching a
2
credibility determination, an ALJ may weigh inconsistencies between the
claimant’s testimony and his or her conduct, daily activities, and work record,
among other factors.”) (citation omitted).
The ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert properly included Cole’s
limitations that were supported by substantial evidence in the record. See
Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The ALJ . . . is free to
accept or reject restrictions in a hypothetical question that are not supported by
substantial evidence. . . .”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3