MEMORANDUM **
Rodney Jackson appeals the district courts judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review the district courts affirmance of the administrative law judges (“ALJ”) decision de novo and will reverse only if the ALJs decision is not supported by substantial evidence or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded by regulation on other grounds. We affirm the district courts judgment.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJs finding that Jacksons testimony regarding his physical symptoms and limitations was “not entirely credible.” The ALJ performed the required two-step analysis and provided “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for her finding. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996)). The ALJ properly relied on contradictions between the medical record, including an examining doctors opinion, and Jacksons testimony about his back pain and limitations. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ also properly considered Jacksons course of treatment and failure to follow up with prescribed treatment. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113–14 (ALJ may consider claimants failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment); Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (subjective pain complaints properly discredited where claimant received “minimal” and “conservative” treatment).
AFFIRMED.