Moon

MEMORANDUM ***

Gary Moon appeals the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s denial of his application for supplemental security income benefits. He contends that the ALJ erred by (1) refusing to credit his testimony that he was disabled; (2) rejecting the opinions of two examining psychologists that his impairments rendered him unemployable; and (3) fashioning a vocational hypothetical that failed to include all of his impairments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

DISCUSSION

1. Moon’s Testimony

In this circuit, “the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of [his] symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir.1996). Here, the ALJ relied on (1) medical opinions of three doctors who stated that Moon suffered “from no more than ‘moderate’ limitations in function,” (2) evidence of “a possible exaggeration of psychological symptoms,” (3) the fact that Moon had not sought treatment of his impairments, (4) Moon’s inconsistent testimony regarding his claimed physical limitations; and (5) inconsistencies between Moon’s claimed…