Maria Quesada v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA QUESADA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-57059
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01139-JM-POR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 22, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Maria Quesada appeals the district court’s judgment affirming 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
FILED
MAR 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-57059 2
under 28 U.S.C. §1291. We review de novo, Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231
(9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
rejection of the treating physicians’ opinions because the examining physicians’
independent clinical findings differed from the treating physicians’ findings and
the medical expert’s testimony undermined the treating physicians’ conclusions.
See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen an examining
physician provides independent clinical finding that differ from the findings of the
treating physician, such findings are substantial evidence.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 726 (9th Cir. 1998)
(consistency of treating physician’s report with other medical findings is a
legitimate basis for evaluating report’s reliability).
The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial
evidence, for determining that Quesada was not credible. See Tonapetyan v.
Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001) (the claimant’s tendency to exaggerate
is a legitimate consideration in determining credibility). The ALJ’s reliance on the
incorrectly dated discogram was harmless error, because the ALJ’s remaining
reasons for finding Quesada not credible constitute substantial evidence supporting

-- 2 of 3 --

11-57059 3
the finding. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162-63
(9th Cir. 2008).
The ALJ did not err in relying on the testimony of the vocational expert to
conclude that Quesada could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national economy because the ALJ asked the vocational expert to identify any
conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) and the vocational
expert’s statement that her testimony was in conformance with the DOT is
supported by the record. See Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.
2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --