Watkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM

Phillip Eugene Watkins appeals a district court order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of an application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 -1383f. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

1. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Watkins’ testimony about the severity of his symptoms and limitations not credible because the testimony was inconsistent with his daily activities, the medical evidence, and the record as a whole. The ALJ gave the required “ ‘specific, clear and convincing reasons’ ” for rejecting the testimony. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir.2012) (quoting Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2009)). The ALJ also identified affirmative evidence suggesting that Watkins was malingering. See id.; Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir.2008).

2. The ALJ found lay witness evidence from Watkins’ mother and a friend of limited value because the daily activities the witnesses described were not consistent with someone who was unable to work. This is a germane reason for discounting the lay evidence. See Carmickle, 533 F.3d at…