
    Jenny M. HOYT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-35682.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 2, 2015.
    
    Filed June 5, 2015.
    Dana C. Madsen, Madsen Law Office, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Pamela J. Derusha, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, Leisa Wolf, Esquire, SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jenny M. Hoyt appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The ALJ did not err in discounting the opinion of treating physician Dr. Mabee, as she gave “specific, legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.” Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.1995)). Specifically, Dr. Mabee’s opinions were based on check-box forms, and they were predicated on the self-reporting of Hoyt, who the ALJ determined was not credible. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.2012) (“[T]he ALJ may ‘permissibly reject[ ] ... check-off reports that [do] not contain any explanation of the bases of their conclusions.’ ” (internal citation omitted)); Morgan, 169 F.3d at 602 (“A physician’s opinion of disability premised to a large extent upon the claimant’s own accounts of his symptoms and limitations may be disregarded where those complaints have been properly discounted.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Further, the ALJ’s .decision remains supported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding the submission of the report of Dr. Arnold subsequent to such decision. Reports “submitted after the ALJ issued [her] decision” are by their nature “less persuasive.” Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1996). Further, the reasons that the ALJ gave for rejecting the opinions, of Dr. Mabee “apply with equal force” to the opinion of Dr. Arnold. Both opinions are based on the same check-box form, and based on the same self-reports of Hoyt. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1122 (explaining that, even when the ALJ fails to comment upon certain testimony, such failure is harmless when the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting other testimony “apply with equal force” to the ignored testimony).

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