MEMORANDUM **
Tracey Randall appeals the district courts judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioners denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381–83. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district courts judgment affirming the Administrative Law Judges (“ALJ”) denial of social security benefits, “and will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision ‘contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). We will not reverse an ALJs decision for harmless error, which exists “when it is clear from the record that the ALJs error was ‘inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.’ ” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
1. The ALJ properly evaluated the medical evidence. First, the ALJ properly found that the treating psychologists’ opinions were inconsistent with Randalls mental–status examination results and range of activities. Thus, the ALJ discounted their opinions for “specific and legitimate” reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154–56; Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJs failure to discuss Dr. Wingates 2008 opinion was harmless error because this opinion was entirely consistent with her other opinions, which were duly considered. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2012).
Second, where the opinions of the state agency medical consultants were consistent with the objective medical findings of record, the ALJs decision to give “great weight” to their opinions was supported by substantial evidence. See Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2017) as amended (Feb. 28, 2018) (finding no legal error where there was no “obvious inconsistency” between a medical opinion and the ALJs findings). These findings included mild degenerative changes to the spine, no neurologic motor deficits, normal gait, overall conservative treatment with no surgery, positive results from pain medication, and Randalls reported range of activities.
Third, the ALJ did not err in his consideration of evidence from medical providers who did not state an opinion regarding Randalls limitations. The evidence that Randall offers from these other medical providers is consistent with the ALJs findings. See id. Substantial evidence supports the ALJs determination as to these medical providers. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154.
2. The ALJ properly evaluated the “other source” evidence from mental health counselor Bill Wilson. The ALJ considered the counselors assessment and, in determining Randalls residual functional capacity, the ALJ included some limitations from that assessment. In light of the record as a whole, the counselors notes do not show that Randalls limitations were more severe. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 173 L.Ed.2d 532 (2009) (“[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agencys determination.”). Substantial evidence thus supports the ALJs assessment. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154.
3. The ALJ properly discredited some of Randalls testimony about his symptoms and limitations. Randalls allegations of physical and mental symptoms were inconsistent with the record medical findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(4). Improvement with conservative treatment is a convincing reason to discount an allegation of disabling symptoms; conservative measures like medication controlled Randalls symptoms well. See Warre v. Commr of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040. And “an ALJ may consider any work activity, including part-time work, in determining whether a claimant is disabled.” Ford, 950 F.3d at 1156. Randalls activities during the relevant period undermined his allegations. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113; Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 1992). Substantial evidence supports the ALJs determination that Randall was more able and active than he asserted. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154.
4. The ALJ properly discounted the statements of Randalls long-term partner Julie Wilson. Her statements, which echoed Randalls testimony, were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. Substantial evidence thus supports the ALJs decision to give her statements “minimal weight.”
5. Substantial evidence supports the ALJs residual functional capacity and step-five findings, which included Randalls credible limitations. In the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert, the ALJ properly included only those limitations found credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.