Rodney Dean Jackson v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY DEAN JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-17442
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00165-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 6, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
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.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 8 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
§ 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Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded by regulation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.

-- 2 of 2 --