JAY C. GANDHI, Magistrate Judge.
Alicia Y. Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") challenges the Social Security Commissioner ("Commissioner")'s decision denying her application for disability benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") improperly rejected her credibility regarding her claim of debilitating shoulder, neck, and back injury. (See Joint Stipulation ("Joint Stip.") at 2-13, 22-23.) For the reasons outlined below, the Court disagrees.
As a rule, an ALJ can reject a claimant's subjective complaints by "expressing clear and convincing reasons for doing so." Benton ex rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003). "General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines a claimant's complaints." Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
Here, the ALJ provided three valid reasons for rejecting Plaintiff's credibility.
First, the objective medical evidence contradicted Plaintiff's allegations regarding both the severity of her symptoms and her functional limitations. (See Administrative Record ("AR") at 31); see also Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2001) (inconsistencies with objective evidence, when combined with other factors, are valid reasons for rejecting a claimant's testimony). Such medical evidence included, e.g., (1) examination notes by Plaintiff's treating physician revealing that Plaintiff's shoulder appeared unremarkable and displayed normal motor strength; (2) medical tests, including an electromyogram and x-ray, showing normal, unremarkable findings; and (3) post-surgical treatment notes stating that Plaintiff's pain was lessened and she regained a "virtually full and unrestricted" range of motion in her shoulder. (See AR at 31-33, 461, 467, 473, 476, 520, 526, 527, 535, 542); see also Lewis v. Astrue, 238 F. App'x 300, 302 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ properly rejected claimant's credibility in part because objective evidence, including normal motor strength, contradicted claimant's alleged limitations); Nemeth v. Colvin, 2013 WL 5655556, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct 17, 2013) (ALJ properly discounted claimant's testimony in part because shoulder surgery improved claimant's pain and range of motion); Remick v. Astrue, 2010 WL 3853081, at *6, *9-10 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010) (ALJ properly rejected claimant's credibility in part because objective medical evidence, including normal electromyogram and x-rays, contradicted claimant's alleged limitations).
Second, Plaintiff's conditions improved with treatment. (See AR at 476, 520, 535); see also Warre v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling[.]"); Douglas v. Astrue, 2012 WL 4485679, at *23 (D. Or. Aug. 28, 2012) (ALJ properly rejected claimant's subjective complaints of upper extremity pain in part because medications, including cervical epidural steroid injections given by specialist, afforded claimant relief). For example, treatment notes from specialists revealed that steroid injections were effective in alleviating Plaintiff's pain in her shoulder, neck, and back.
Third, Plaintiff's daily activities — including preparing meals for her family
Accordingly, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision that Plaintiff was not disabled. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001).
Based on the foregoing,