
    Donna LENOCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-35634.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 6, 2010.
    
    Filed May 11, 2010.
    
      Tim Wilborn, Wilborn Law Office, PC, Oregon City, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Nancy Albert Mishalanie, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BEA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The ALJ didn’t err in declining to find Lenocker’s degenerative disc disease a severe impairment because it didn’t satisfy the duration requirement. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509. When Lenocker saw a doctor in 2006 for a back injury, she told the doctor that she had recovered from her previous injuries. For her present injury, the doctor projected that she could return to work in three to six weeks.

The ALJ properly credited the opinion of Dr. Leland and discredited the opinions of Dr. Cole and the DDS physicians regarding the severity of Lenocker’s non-exertional limitations. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir.2008). Leland’s evaluation was the latest and most comprehensive.

The ALJ properly discredited Lenocker’s testimony because there was evidence of malingering. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2006). And the ALJ gave germane reasons for rejecting the testimony of the lay witnesses. See Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1164. Lester’s assessment was at odds with Lenocker’s ability to work as a caregiver for six months, and the opinions of Lenocker’s family were inconsistent with the medical record.

The vocational hypothetical wasn’t flawed because it contained all of the limitations the ALJ found credible. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.2005).

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