Amy Lou Finnegan-Crews v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMY LOU FINNEGAN-CREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-16755
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02458-DGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 14, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: Pregerson, Leavy, and Owens, Circuit Judges.
Amy Lou Finnegan-Crews appeals pro se the district court’s decision
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for
supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We
FILED
APR 18 2016
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 --

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the district court’s
decision de novo. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). We
affirm.
Finnegan-Crews waived her contention regarding a disabling hip injury by
failing to raise it before the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) or the district court.
See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finnegan-Crews contends that she established disability due to her mental
condition, but she does not explain how the ALJ erred. The ALJ provided specific
and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for giving “very little
weight” to the contradicted opinion of Dr. Hilda S. Amato, a treating physician.
See Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1160-61; Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d
1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). The ALJ conducted the required two-step analysis and
provided multiple specific, clear and convincing reasons for finding that Finnegan-
Crews’s testimony and other statements were not fully credible. See Rounds v.
Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating that ALJ
may consider ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation and observations of
treating physicians regarding claimant’s symptoms); Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that ALJ must
specifically identify the testimony he finds not to be credible and explain what
2

-- 2 of 3 --

evidence undermines the testimony); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th
Cir. 2012) (upholding credibility finding where testimony contradicted by medical
evidence that claimant’s anxiety disorder was well-controlled with medication and
other self-calming measures).
AFFIRMED.1
1 Finnegan-Crews’s motion to supplement the record is denied.
3

-- 3 of 3 --