Cssa

MEMORANDUM

Abdu Hassen appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income payments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and reverse in part. Because the factual and procedural history is familiar to the parties, we need not recount it here.

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting the testimony of Drs. O’Dell and Krause because the testimony largely relied on Hassen’s self-reported symptoms and limitations and because the record evidence showing Hassen’s improved mental health and subsequent work as a medical transporter undermined their evaluations. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 956-57 (9th Cir.2002). The ALJ did not err in failing to discuss the opinions of doctors Tatyrek, Lowenstein, Thrall, Law-lor, and Swanson because their testimony was not significant or probative. See Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393 , 1394-95 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam); see also Hassen v. Holder, No. CV 08-742-PK, at *4-8 (D. Or. filed Dec. 11, 2009) (explaining why…