Anthony Taylor v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Anthony Lee Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the distinct court’s order de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012), and affirm.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) provided specific, clear and convincing reasons to discount Taylor’s testimony regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his pain, his immobility, and the side effects of medications. First, the ALJ reasonably determined that Taylor’s allegation that he was completely disabled as a result of his gout was not supported by the medical evidence. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.2001).

Second, the ALJ also reasonably considered that since filing his application in October 2008, Taylor received limited treatment for his symptoms and that he had not been fully compliant with the conservative treatment that he did receive or that was recommended for his hypertension. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir.2007); Fair…