Vernon Barr v. Carolyn W. Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Vernon Barr appeals the denial of his application for Social Security benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1.The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not err in not evaluating Barr’s eczema at step two because Barr presented no medical evidence of an eczema impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513 (a), 416.913(a); Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir.2005). Furthermore, the Appeals Council was not required to remand for further factual development after Barr produced medical evidence of his eczema because, even with the medical evidence as part of the record, substantial, evidence supported the ALJ’s decision not to consider Barr’s eczema as a severe impairment. See Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.2006).

2. The ALJ provided “specific, clear and convincing reasons” to discredit Barr’s testimony about the severity of his impairments. Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.2011). The ALJ discredited Barr’s testimony about his knee pain because it was inconsistent with Barr’s prior statements and objective medical evidence that Barr was “doing well” and making…