Levi Schultz v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Levi Schultz appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner in a challenge to the Commissioner’s finding that Schultz is not disabled pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

1. We affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) adverse credibility finding with respect to Schultz because it is supported by a “clear and convincing reason[ ].” Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ was entitled to discredit Schultz’s testimony based on its inconsistency with Schultz’s reported daily activities, such as his ability soon after back surgery to hike two to three miles. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.2008); Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2004).

2. We affirm the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Norelle’s opinion that Schultz would be disabled for one year. The ALJ provided “clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record” for discounting Dr. Norelle’s opinion about disability. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202-03 (9th…