Denise M. Lock v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENISE M. LOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-35741
D.C. No. 6:16-cv-00408-JR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 31, 2019**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Denise M. Lock appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Lock’s application for
supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We
* 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).
FILED
FEB 4 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-35741
review de novo, Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017), and we
affirm.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) largely incorporated Ms. Porter’s
opinion into the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) by including limitations to
little social interaction and simple instructions with only occasional changes in
work setting. See Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1223 (9th Cir.
2010) (concluding that the ALJ is not required to provide reasoning to reject
limitations that are reasonably incorporated into the RFC). To the extent that the
ALJ rejected Ms. Porter’s opinion as to more extreme limitations in getting along
with co-workers and peers and responding appropriately to supervisors, the ALJ
properly concluded that these limitations were inconsistent with Lock’s work
history. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th Cir.
2009) (explaining that inconsistency with the claimant’s actual work activity is a
proper reason to reject a medical opinion).
The ALJ reasonably incorporated Dr. Prescott’s opinion into the RFC by
limiting Lock to a stable work environment with little social interaction. See
Turner, 613 F.3d at 1223.
The ALJ provided several clear and convincing reasons to discredit Lock’s
testimony as to her mental and physical limitations, including inconsistency with
her actual work history, improvement with treatment, inconsistency with Lock’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-35741
daily activities, and inconsistency with unremarkable physical evidence. See
Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1173 n.2 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the ALJ
may properly consider the claimant’s work history in evaluating their testimony);
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (including inconsistency
with activities in reasons that the ALJ may properly discredit claimant testimony);
Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008)
(inconsistency with objective medical evidence is a clear and convincing reason to
discredit claimant testimony); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.
2008) (explaining that the ALJ may properly discredit claimant testimony based on
improvement with conservative treatment).
The ALJ properly rejected the lay testimony regarding limitations in
concentration and social interaction as inconsistent with Lock’s ability to maintain
employment for a year and a half. See Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1164 (explaining
that inconsistency with activities is a germane reason to reject lay testimony).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --