Danny N. Lindsley v. Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANNY N. LINDSLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-35543
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00552-SU
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 13, 2015 **
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Danny N. Lindsley appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social
FILED
FEB 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Security Act. 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 affirm.
Lindsley’s contention that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not
specifically identify what part of the testimony he found not credible, as required
by Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th Cir. 2001), is belied by the
record.
Contrary to Lindsley’s contention, the ALJ provided specific, clear and
convincing reasons for rejecting Lindsley’s subjective complaints. The ALJ cited
Lindsley’s conservative and routine course of treatment, daily activities, work
record, and medical records. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir.
1996) (listing factors to consider in evaluating a claimant’s credibility).
Lindsley contends that the ALJ did not provide reasons “germane to the
witness” for rejecting the testimony of his fiancée, Angela Sterling. Although the
ALJ erred by rejecting Sterling’s lay witness testimony because she is not a
medical source, such error is harmless because the ALJ provided a separate, valid
reason, supported by the record, for rejecting Sterling’s testimony. See Molina,
674 F.3d at 1115. The ALJ explained that Sterling’s testimony was inconsistent
with the medical evidence and Lindsley’s daily activities. See Carmickle v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing testimony that
2

-- 2 of 3 --

claimant has trouble sitting as inconsistent with claimant’s ability to complete full-
time coursework); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing
inconsistency with medical evidence).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --