MEMORANDUM **
Charles Bufkin appeals the district courts judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), we affirm the district courts judgment.
Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judges (“ALJ”) assessment that Bufkin had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform medium work. The ALJ properly relied on the opinions of three doctors from 2013. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (opinions of non-treating or non-examining doctors may serve as substantial evidence). As to evidence after December 2013, the ALJ properly considered all of the various types of evidence in the medical record, including objective evidence such as x-rays, Bufkins treatment history, and clinical findings, and properly translated and incorporated this evidence into an RFC finding. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.913(a), 416.945(a)(3); Rounds v. Commr, 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015). Contrary to Bufkins argument, the ALJ did not rely on her “lay interpretation” of medical evidence. Rather, the ALJ simply summarized the medical evidence from Dr. Parminder and Dr. Emlein; she did not interpret any x-rays or test results directly. ALJs need not seek the opinion of a medical expert every time they review new medical evidence and make a RFC determination. See Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (determining RFC “is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimants physician”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).
Substantial evidence also supports the ALJs discounting of Bufkins testimony regarding his symptoms. The ALJ performed the required two-step analysis and provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for her assessment. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ properly cited Bufkins daily activities, his receipt of routine and conservative treatment, his periodic failure to take prescribed cardiac medication, and a lack of support in the medical record. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113-14 (daily activities, failure to follow prescribed course of treatment); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (conservative treatment); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (medical evidence). Any error in the ALJs reliance on a lack of treating source opinions in the record was harmless. See Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020).
AFFIRMED.