Robert Jamtaas v. Carolyn W. Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Robert Jamtaas (Jamtaas) appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of his application for supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. We affirm.

1.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for weighing the opinions of the various medical providers. See Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir.2012). Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Wingate’s assessment of functional limitations that were based on her diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). See Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2005). Jamtaas did not testify at his administrative hearing to symptoms of PTSD, and no other doctor diagnosed him with PTSD. Thus, the ALJ’s duty to develop the record was not triggered. See Garcia v. Comm’r of Soc., Sec., 768 F.3d 925, 930-31 (9th Cir.2014).

2. The ALJ also provided specific, clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting Jam-taas’ testimony about the severity of his symptoms. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2014). These reasons included Jamtaas’ own inconsistent…