
    Donna L. BEAVERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-35581.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2013.
    Filed Nov. 20, 2013.
    James S. Coon, Esquire, Swanson Thomas & Coon, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, Gerald James Hill, Assistant Regional Counsel, SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, has been substituted for her predecessor, Michael J. Astrue.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donna L. Beavers appeals from the District Court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that she was not disabled within the meaning of Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Beavers argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by rejecting the opinions of four physicians without providing “clear and convincing” reasons to reject their uncontroverted conclusions or “specific and legitimate” reasons to reject their controverted conclusions. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir.2005). The record, however, establishes that the ALJ provided sufficient reasons to reject each of these physicians’ opinions.

Beavers also argues that the ALJ erred by failing to address expressly the opinions of Drs. Bowen Parsons, Charissa Rose, and Jonathan Birnkrant. Given the ALJ’s other findings, particularly his express determination that petitioner’s testimony about her disability and her reporting to these physicians was not credible, any errors in declining explicitly to address those physicians’ opinions is “ ‘inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination’ in the context of the record as a whole,” and therefore harmless. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1122 (9th Cir.2012) (citations omitted).

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     