JACKSON v. SAUL (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Rodney Jackson 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 Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review the district court's affirmance of the administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) decision de novo and will reverse only if the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded by regulation on other grounds. We affirm the district court's judgment.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Jackson's testimony regarding his physical symptoms and limitations was “not entirely credible.” The ALJ performed the required two-step analysis and provided “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for her finding. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996)). The ALJ properly relied on contradictions between the medical record, including an examining doctor's opinion, and Jackson's testimony about his back pain and limitations. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ also properly considered Jackson's course of treatment and failure to follow up with prescribed treatment. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113–14 (ALJ may consider claimant's failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment); Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (subjective pain complaints properly discredited where claimant received “minimal” and “conservative” treatment).

AFFIRMED.