FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 15 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK D. BAILEY, No. 14-17304
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01119-MHB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michelle H. Burns, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 11, 2016**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Patrick D. Bailey appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Bailey’s application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Bailey 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 obesity, asthma, low back pain, sleep apnea, and post-gastric
bypass surgery. 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 and legitimate reasons
for rejecting the opinion of treating physician Dr. Ted Faro. First, the ALJ
reasonably found that Dr. Faro’s disability evaluation was inadequately supported
by Dr. Faro’s own treatment records. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216
(9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an ALJ need not accept the opinion of a doctor that is
inadequately supported by clinical findings). Second, the ALJ reasonably found
that Dr. Faro’s disability evaluation was inconsistent with other medical evidence.
For example, the ALJ correctly noted that Bailey’s other treating physician, Dr.
Michael Brown, found that Bailey exhibited no remarkable limitations.
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that
inconsistency with medical evidence is a specific and legitimate reason for
rejecting a physician’s opinion). Any error in the ALJ’s additional reasons for
rejecting Dr. Faro’s opinions was harmless. Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1173
(9th Cir. 2015) (holding that harmless error is appropriate in reviewing an ALJ’s
analysis of a treating physician’s opinion).
-2-
The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding that
Bailey was not fully credible. First, the ALJ noted that the objective medical
evidence did not support the limitations described by Bailey. Burch v. Barnhart,
400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an ALJ may consider lack of
medical evidence but it cannot be the only factor supporting an adverse credibility
finding). Second, the ALJ appropriately noted that many of Bailey’s impairments
had been alleviated by effective medical treatment, and this was inconsistent with
Bailey’s alleged total disability. Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d
1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that impairments that can be controlled
effectively with medications are not disabling). Third, the ALJ reasonably
concluded that Bailey’s daily activities contrasted with his testimony regarding his
limitations. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112-13 (holding that a claimant’s daily activities
may be grounds for discrediting the claimant’s testimony). Any error in the ALJ’s
additional reasons for finding Bailey less than fully credible was harmless.
Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008)
(holding that where there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s credibility
determination, the ALJ’s reliance on other invalid reasons is harmless).
Finally, the ALJ posed a hypothetical question to the vocational expert that
contained all of Bailey’s limitations. The ALJ recognized Bailey’s obesity as a
-3-
severe impairment, and considered obesity as a limiting factor. The ALJ properly
relied on the vocational expert’s response in formulating the residual functional
capacity assessment. Batson v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197
(9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
-4-