Robert S. Bettis v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT S. BETTIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-35014
D.C. No. 6:13-cv-01623-CL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 7, 2016**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Robert S. Bettis appeals the district court’s judgment affirming an
Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying his application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 20 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 --

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The ALJ provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for finding Bettis
not fully credible: (1) Bettis’s condition improved with treatment, 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[.]”); (2) there
was no evidence of follow up care, and although Bettis contends he could not
afford treatment, he was advised to go to a free clinic, id.; (3) Dr. Atkinson’s
opinion was consistent with the record, her clinical observations, and Bettis’s daily
activities; (4) the medical evidence contradicted Bettis’s allegations of memory and
concentration problems; and (5) Bettis declined treatment for depression. See
Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ
must provide “clear and convincing” reasons for discrediting a claimant absent
“affirmative evidence” of malingering) (citation omitted)); see also Ghanim v.
Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing credibility factors).
The ALJ gave a germane reason for rejecting the lay witness testimony of
Bettis’s spouse and of Bettis’s former employer that Bettis had memory and
concentration problems: the testimony was contradicted by the medical evidence.
See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) (inconsistency with
medical evidence is a germane reason for rejecting lay testimony); see also
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009)
(suggesting one germane reason is sufficient).
The ALJ did not err in failing to recognize Bettis’s obesity as an impairment.
The record does not indicate that Bettis’s obesity caused any functional limitations,
and in any event, the ALJ took into account Bettis’s obesity in formulating the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) because the ALJ credited the opinion of Dr.
Atkinson, who considered Bettis’s weight in assessing his functional abilities. See
Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681–83 (9th Cir. 2005) (addressing arguments
about ALJ’s failure to properly consider claimant’s obesity).
Having rejected Bettis’s claims that he had problems with his memory and
concentration and that he was unable to sit, the ALJ was not required to again
consider these impairments at Step 4. The ALJ’s RFC determination and
associated questions posed to the vocational expert pertaining to Bettis’s
restrictions “contained all of the limitations” that he “found credible.” Bayliss, 427
F.3d at 1217. The ALJ’s reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony in
concluding that Bettis was able to perform his past relevant work as a web designer
was therefore proper.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --