MEMORANDUM ***
Mollye M. Parton appeals the district courts affirmance of the Commissioners denial of her claim for disability benefits.
1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. Parton argues that the Appeals Council erred by failing to consider new evidence that would have, with reasonable probability, changed the outcome of the decision. “We review the district courts decision sustaining the ALJs denial of social security benefits de novo.” Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016). The Appeals Council shall consider new and material evidence if it relates to the period on or before the date of the decision and if there is a reasonable probability the evidence would change the outcome of the decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970(a)(5) & (b), 416.1470(a)(5) & (b). The new evidence Parton sought to introduce was an evaluation and opinion from Partons treating physician, Dr. Jackson, stating that Parton was unable to do even sedentary work. The opinion was duplicative of Dr. Jacksons prior opinion and not based upon a new physical evaluation, and thus the Appeals Council reasonably determined that the evidence would not change the outcome of the decision.
2. Parton next argues that the ALJ erred by not properly weighing the medical opinion evidence. The ALJs decision is reviewed for substantial evidence. Biestek v. Berryhill, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154, 203 L.Ed.2d 504 (2019). An ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons for giving less weight to a treating or examining physicians contradicted opinion. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995). An ALJ may “reject the opinion of a non-examining physician by reference to specific evidence in the medical record.” Sousa v. Callahan, 143 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). Parton asserts that the ALJ erred in limiting Partons treating physicians opinion and discounting the opinions of certain of the consulting physicians.
The ALJ weighed the contradictory medical opinions and gave limited weight to the opinion of Partons treating physician, Dr. Jackson, because Dr. Jacksons opinion was inconsistent with the record as a whole, her examination results were contradicted by the results of other contemporaneous examinations, and she did not adequately consider that Partons self-reports of pain may have been influenced by Partons drug-seeking behavior. Those constituted specific and legitimate reasons to discount Dr. Jacksons testimony. Parton also fails to demonstrate that substantial evidence did not support the ALJs decision to discount the opinions of consulting physicians Dr. Thompson and Dr. Dalton, because the ALJ determined those opinions were not consistent with the record as a whole based on citations to specific medical evidence.
3. Parton further argues that the ALJ failed to list her lumbar spine and right arm impairments as severe in Step Two of the Five Step Evaluation Process. Step Two is merely a threshold determination and is not meant to identify the impairments that should be taken into account when determining the residual functional capacity (RFC). Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2017). When Step Two is decided in the claimants favor, any error is harmless and cannot be the basis for remand. Id. at 1049. The right arm and lumbar spine impairments were associated with and connected to Partons severe neck and hip impairments, which the ALJ accounted for in determining the RFC. The district court correctly determined that the additional impairments did not create limitations not accounted for in the ALJs RFC assessment.
4. Parton finally argues that the ALJ erred by not fully crediting Partons subjective symptom testimony. Because the medical evidence shows that Partons underlying impairments could reasonably produce the symptoms alleged, the ALJ needed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting the testimony. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014–15 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ provided such reasons here. The ALJ noted the inconsistencies and contradictions between the objective medical evidence in the record and with Partons testimony. The ALJ determined that Partons drug-seeking behavior further detracted from her testimony regarding her pain and symptoms. The ALJs reasons for discounting Partons testimony were specific, clear, and convincing and are supported by substantial evidence. Coleman v. Saul, 979 F.3d 751, 756 (9th Cir. 2020).
AFFIRMED
FOOTNOTES
1
. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we restate only those necessary to explain our decision.