MEMORANDUM ***
Appellant Daryl Vooge appeals the district courts affirmance of the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of disability benefits. Appellant challenges the findings of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) who conducted the prescribed sequential evaluation of Appellants claim and found that any impairments he had were not severe. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the “district courts order affirming the ALJs denial of social security benefits de novo ․ and will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
1. The ALJ provided “specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence” in weighing conflicting medical opinions. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). The testimony of a non-examining medical advisor may support an ALJs rejection of an examining physicians conclusions. See, e.g., Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751-52 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, the ALJ rejected an examining physicians opinion with reference to the medical record, contrary medical opinions, and inconsistencies in Appellants testimony. The ALJ determined that the examining physicians opinion deserved little weight, as the examination took place more than two years after the date last insured, and it was inconsistent with objective medical evidence. In contrast, the ALJ was persuaded by a non-examining physician who thoroughly reviewed the entire record and defended his positions at the disability hearing. The ALJ acted within her authority in making that determination. See Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020).
2. The ALJ also permissibly concluded that Appellants impairments were not severe. A finding of disability requires a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment (or combination of impairments) that meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A “severe impairment” must “significantly limit[ ]” the claimants “physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. § 404.1520(c); see id. § 404.1522. An ALJs conclusion that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments must be supported by substantial evidence. See Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, the ALJ made her determination based on a thorough review of the medical record. The ALJ found further support in the testimony of two medical experts. The ALJs conclusions were thus supported by substantial evidence.
3. The ALJ permissibly discounted Appellants testimony, as well. “An ALJ engages in a two-step analysis to determine whether a claimants testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is credible.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014 (9th Cir. 2014). “[T]he ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. (citation omitted). “If ․ there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimants testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Id. at 1014-15 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The ALJ acknowledged that “the claimant suffered from medically determinable impairments of degenerative disc disease of the cervical, lumbar and thoracic spines ․ through the date last insured ․” However, the ALJ found the records “devoid of any objective findings establishing these conditions as ‘severe’ impairments.” While the ALJ recognized that Appellant complained of serious back pain in May 2006 and February 2009 medical visits, she noted unremarkable findings and observations, such as Appellant appearing in no acute distress in February 2009. In referencing a July 2009 medical treatment for gastrointestinal bleed, the ALJ acknowledged that the record mentions chronic back pain; however, the ALJ highlighted that back pain was not listed as a symptom, and medical observations were unremarkable for spinal health, range of motion, and motor/sensory deficits. The ALJ permissibly concluded that this was “inconsistent with the claimants allegations of disabling limitations during this period.” The ALJs citation to the expert medical opinions of two physicians further bolstered these findings. The ALJ thus met the requisite standard of providing “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for rejecting Appellants claims of severe impairment during the relevant period. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014-15.
AFFIRMED.