
    Vitaliy DIKOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-35036
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 30, 2017 
    
    Filed December 13, 2017
    
      Bruce Whitman Brewer, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Bruce W. Brewer, PC, West Linn, OR, Jeffrey H. Baird, Attorney, Dellert Baird Law Office, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Janice Elaine Hebert, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, Jeffrey Eric Staples, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vitaliy Dikov appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Dikov’s application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The ALJ gave the following specific and legitimate reasons for assigning only “limited weight” to treating physician Dr. Long’s opinion regarding Dikov’s functional limitations: (1) Dr. Long did not sufficiently explain his conclusions or address the severity or frequency of pain; (2) evidence shows that Dikov is able to perform activities that Dr. Long opined he could never perform; and (3) his opinion was inconsistent with the findings of other physicians. Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2014) (the ALJ may only reject the contradicted opinion of a treating physician by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.). For example, Dr. Mauer found that Dikov could perform a “full squat and rise to completion without difficulty” and had “full symmetric motor strength.”

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     