Donna L. Fritz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONNA L. FRITZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-15820
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03588-CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 11, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Fritz appeals from the district court’s summary judgment upholding the
Commissioner’s final denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
FILED
SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
1291. We apply de novo review, Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir.
2007), and affirm.
Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding
that Fritz would not need five-minute breaks after every hour of standing or
walking. The contrary testimony of Dr. Jensen, a nonexamining, nontreating
physician, conflicts with that of Dr. Kumar, an examining physician, and is not
otherwise supported by the record. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 831 (9th Cir.
1995).
The ALJ offered specific, clear, and convincing reasons to support his
adverse credibility finding against Fritz, including (1) the reports of Dr. Kumar and
other physicians, (2) the lack of objective medical evidence supporting the alleged
limitation, and (3) evidence in the record that Fritz had undergone successful
conservative treatment and was able to perform daily functions. See Lingenfelter v.
Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007).
The ALJ’s refusal to include the rejected limitations in hypothetical
questions to the vocational expert was permissible. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261
F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ is not required to include rejected limitations).
The ALJ’s failure to ask the vocational expert whether the expert’s
testimony contradicted the Dictionary of Occupational Titles was harmless error

-- 2 of 3 --

3
because Fritz has not shown any contradiction to be present. See Massachi v.
Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1154 n.19 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --