Van Henry Jordan, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Van Henry Jordan, Jr. appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The ALJ did not err in discounting Jordan’s testimony about the severity and intensity of his symptoms because she gave “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for doing so, see Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), including that Jordan responded favorably to conservative treatment and worked only sporadically prior to the alleged disability onset date, both of which undermine a claimant’s testimony that he is unable to work due to disabling pain, see Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2008); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir.2002). The ALJ properly relied on Jordan’s daily activities to discount his testimony because they contradict his “claims of a totally debilitating impairment” even if Jordan did not spend a substantial part of his day engaged in them. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113 .

The ALJ also did not err in discounting the opinions of the two nurse practitioners who treated Jordan because…