
    Rhonda La Mae FARNAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-35907.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 25, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
    Charles W. Talbot, Talbot & Associates, PS, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Kerry Keefe, Esquire, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Richard A. Morris, Esquire, SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, 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

Rhonda Farnam appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s partial denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. 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 we affirm.

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”), on remand from the Appeals Council, properly accorded “little weight” to the contradicted opinion of orthopedic surgeon Dr. Lynn Staker because Farnam’s return to full-time work for nearly seven months during the alleged period of disability was a specific and legitimate reason for the discounted weight. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th Cir.2009).

■ The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for his credibility finding by citing both the medical evidence and the fact that Farnam returned to full-time work during the alleged period of disability. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir.2005). Although the ALJ may have erred in relying on Far-nam’s daily activities as a reason for discounting her credibility, any error was harmless because the ALJ relied upon two other reasons that were supported by substantial evidence. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115.

Because the ALJ’s credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ properly evaluated the medical evidence, we reject Farnam’s assertion that the ALJ erred in making the residual functional capacity finding or in posing the hypothetical question to the vocational expert. See Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th Cir.2001).

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