MEMORANDUM **
Kevin Guith, proceeding pro se, appeals the district courts judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of Guiths application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo, Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.
The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) gave clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for giving the opinion of Dr. Portnoff partial weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) (setting forth factors for weighing a treating physicians opinion when it is not given controlling weight); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675 (“To reject the uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining doctor, an ALJ must state clear and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The ALJ accounted for the mild to moderate limitations described by Dr. Portnoff by including in the residual functional capacity that Guith could perform simple repetitive tasks. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). To the extent that the ALJ erred in giving partial weight to Dr. Portnoffs opinion on the ground that it was based on Guiths subjective complaints, any error was harmless. See Carmickle v. Commr, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (error is harmless if it is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination).
The ALJs failure to address the lay witness statement of Guiths father was harmless error because the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Guiths testimony, and Guiths fathers statement was similar to Guiths testimony. See Valentine v. Commr Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009) (where the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the claimants own subjective complaints, and the lay witnesss testimony was similar, it follows that the ALJ also gave germane reasons for rejecting the lay witnesss testimony); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (“evidence of conservative treatment is sufficient to discount a claimants testimony regarding the severity of an impairment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Guith waived his remaining issues on appeal by failing to raise them in the district court, where he was represented by counsel. See Warre v. Commr of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues not raised before the district court are waived on appeal).
Guiths fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth motions for an extension of time to file the reply brief (Dkt. No. 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43) are DENIED.
AFFIRMED.