Thrush

MEMORANDUM ***

I.

“The ALJ need not accept the opinion of a physician — even a treating physician — if *684 it is conclusionary and brief and is unsupported by clinical findings.” Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir.1992). The ALJ rejected Dr. Kurlychek’s conclusions in his 1996 decision, as well as his conclusions in his 1998 decision, for several reasons described in her opinion and summarized in the district court’s opinion.

We accept the district court’s analysis of the weight to be accorded Dr. Kurlychek’s testimony:

ER 226-227.

II.

We also accept the district court’s determination of the adequacy of the vocational testimony set forth in its opinion. ER 227-228. Appellant argues that the descriptions of occupations described by the vocational expert in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) require frequent reaching, handling and fingering and that he cannot perform these tasks because of the limitations in his hands, and because he often experiences deficiencies of concentration, persistence or pace resulting in a failure to complete tasks in a timely manner. We are satisfied that the ALJ’s vocational hypothetical accounted for such…