
    Bruce L. EDGINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-55237.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 26, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    
      Lawrence David Rohlfing, Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Shea Lita Bond, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee. ■
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. '
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case’is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bruce L. Edginton appeals the district court’s judgment' affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Edginton’s applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income Under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Edginton alleged disability due to back problems, pain disorder, and bipolar disorder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012), and affirm.

1. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ’s”) decision to rely on the vocational expert’s analysis of the job market. .First, the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s expertise to explain complex vocational issues. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(e); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that an ALJ may rely on the vocational expert’s testimony regarding number of relevant jobs).' Second, the vocational expert reasonably opined that Edginton’s alternative job calculation was not correct, and the ALJ was within his discretion to credit the expert’s conclusions. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that an ALJ is responsible for resolving' conflicts). Finally, the ALJ allowed Edginton’s attorney the opportunity' to respond by leaving the record open for Edginton to submit additional evidence. See Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 602 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that an ALJ satisfies the duty to develop the record by leaving the record open after a hearing). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s adoption of the vocational expert’s testimony.

2. The ALJ provided a specific, clear, and convincing reason for finding Edginton’s descriptions of his symptoms less than fully credible. The ALJ reasonably concluded that Edginton’s treatment for his back condition was “routine and conservative” and not the treatment expected for an individual suffering from the disabling ..symptoms that Edginton described. Edginton was generally treated with medications and an electronic transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation unit for his condition. The ALJ properly identified Edginton’s conservative treatment for his alleged disabling pain as a specific, clear, and convincing reason for .doubting Edginton’s credibility concerning the intensity of the pain. See Parra, 481 F.3d at 751 (stating that evidence of conservative treatment mhy be “súffíciént to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment”).

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Edgin-ton was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. '

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     