Thomas

MEMORANDUM **

The Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Thomas did not qualify for disability benefits were free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1989) (where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the determinations of the ALJ must be upheld). The ALJ’s rejection of Thomas’s testimony regarding her excessive pain was justified by specific findings that Thomas had attended university full time and had been unwilling to undergo medical testing recommended by her physician. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 602-03 (9th Cir.1989) (upholding ALJ’s rejection of excess pain testimony based on findings that the plaintiff could perform activities involving the same physical tasks as in his former job and had failed to follow a prescribed course of treatment).

It was the ALJ’s prerogative to reject the conclusory opinion of Thomas’s treating physician that Thomas was disabled because the opinion was contradicted by the conclusions of Thomas’s other physicians. Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. See. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 601 (9th Cir.1999) (“Where medical reports are ineon *650…