Stenberg

MEMORANDUM **

Claimant Connie Stenberg appeals from an adverse judgment on her claim for so *552 cial security disability benefits. On de novo review, Edlund v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 1152 , 1156 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

1. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly rejected the argument that Claimant’s mental impairments are severe, finding that they caused no restrictions in Claimant’s daily activities and only mild difficulties in maintaining social functioning, concentration, persistence, and pace. Substantial evidence supporting that finding included medical records from Drs. Sjodin (noting no objective symptoms of depression and a “good” mood) and Henninger (diagnosing only mild depressive disorder and generalized anxiety), along with consistent reports from two consulting psychologists. Additionally, Claimant failed to follow up with a recommended plan for treatment, viewing it as “a waste of time.” See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that lack of treatment is a legitimate consideration in determining the severity of an impairment).

2. The ALJ permissibly found that Claimant was not entirely credible. Substantial evidence in support of that…