Scott L. Huggett v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT L. HUGGETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-35410
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01746-MA
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 1, 2010**
Portland, Oregon
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The parties are familiar with the facts of the case and we do not repeat them
here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
First, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility determination. The
ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for finding Huggett not entirely
credible because “the claimant engages in daily activities inconsistent with the
alleged symptoms” and “the claimant takes medication or undergoes other
treatment for the symptoms.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1040 (9th Cir.
2007).
Second, the ALJ properly rejected lay witness testimony by providing
“reasons germane to each witness for doing so.” Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511
(9th Cir. 2001).
Third, the ALJ properly determined Huggett’s residual functional capacity
by taking “into account those limitations for which there was record support that
did not depend on [the claimant’s] subjective complaints,” which lacked
credibility. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).
Finally, “[t]he hypothetical that the ALJ posed to the [Vocational Expert
(“VE”)] contained all of the limitations that the ALJ found credible and supported
by substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ’s reliance on testimony the VE
gave in response to the hypothetical therefore was proper.” Id. at 1217–18 (citing
Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 756–57 (9th Cir. 1989)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --