NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELISA D. BOYD, No. 17-35089

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01399-AC v.

MEMORANDUM* NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 27, 2019** Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Melisa D. Boyd appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her 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. Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872,

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 875 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not err in discounting Boyd’s testimony concerning the extent and limiting effects of Boyd’s symptoms. The ALJ applied the requisite two-step framework and cited specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting Boyd’s testimony related to the severity of her symptoms during the relevant period. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017). The ALJ cited evidence showing that Boyd’s symptoms improved with treatment, and Boyd’s subjective complaints were not fully supported by the objective medical evidence. See Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin, 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”) and Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012).

Any error in the ALJ’s remaining reasons for discounting Boyd’s testimony is harmless because the ALJ provided sufficiently specific, clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-35089