Leroy Lindquist, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Leroy Lindquist (“Lindquist”) appeals the district court’s decision to affirm the Social Security Commissioner’s (“Commissioner”) denial of supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits. Lindquist argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by: (1) improperly evaluating medical opinion evidence; (2) improperly discounting the credibility of Lindquist’s testimony; (3) improperly discounting a lay witness statement; (4) failing to include all of Lind-quist’s limitations in his residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination; and (5) relying on Vocational Expert (“VE”) testimony that Lindquist could perform other work even though that testimony was based on an erroneous RFC. In the alternative, Lindquist requests that we remand for rehearing based on new medical evidence submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ hearing.

We review de novo the district court’s order upholding a decision by the Commissioner to deny benefits to an applicant. Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it applies the correct legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence.…