Melisa D. Boyd v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELISA D. BOYD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-35089
D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01399-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 27, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Melisa D. Boyd appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner
of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under
Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo. Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872,
* 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
MAR 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-35089
875 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not err in discounting Boyd’s
testimony concerning the extent and limiting effects of Boyd’s symptoms. The
ALJ applied the requisite two-step framework and cited specific, clear, and
convincing reasons for discounting Boyd’s testimony related to the severity of her
symptoms during the relevant period. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678
(9th Cir. 2017). The ALJ cited evidence showing that Boyd’s symptoms improved
with treatment, and Boyd’s subjective complaints were not fully supported by the
objective medical evidence. See Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin, 439 F.3d
1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with
medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI
benefits.”) and Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012).
Any error in the ALJ’s remaining reasons for discounting Boyd’s testimony
is harmless because the ALJ provided sufficiently specific, clear and convincing
reasons supported by substantial evidence. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --