MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAY C. GANDHI, Magistrate Judge.

Quiana Bell ("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 discounted her credibility.2 (See Joint Stipulation ("Joint Stip.") at 5-16.) 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." Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the ALJ provided at least three valid reasons for finding Plaintiff's testimony "not entirely credible." (AR at 291.)

First, Plaintiff did not follow her prescribed course of treatment. (AR at 291); see Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991) (noncompliance with a prescribed course of treatment is a relevant consideration in assessing a claimant's credibility); Bubion v. Barnhart, 224 F. App'x 601, 604 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ properly discounted claimant's credibility in part based on failure to follow doctor's recommendations). Specifically, Plaintiff was prescribed medications for pain, but urine samples repeatedly showed Plaintiff was not taking them.3 (AR at 290-21, 687.)

Second, Plaintiff reported needing a cane, but she did not have a medical necessity for one.4 (AR at 51-52, 223-26, 238, 240-41, 291, 315, 629, 633); Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (an ALJ may consider a variety of factors in weighing a claimant's believability, including ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, prior inconsistent statements, and testimony by the claimant that "appears less than candid"); Verduzco v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ properly discredited subjective testimony because claimant "used a cane at the hearing, although none of his doctors had ever indicated that he used or needed to use an assistive device in order to walk"); Dominguez v. Colvin, 2016 WL 4467881, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016) (use of cane at examination that was not medically necessary supported credibility determination).

Third, the objective medical evidence contradicted Plaintiff's allegations that she was unable to work, had problems getting out of bed because of pain in her feet and right knee, had a bone-on-bone condition, and had other joint complaints.5 (AR at 291, 314); see 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); Lewis v. Astrue, 238 F. App'x 300, 302 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ properly rejected claimant's credibility in part because objective evidence, including x-rays and normal motor strength findings, contradicted claimant's alleged limitations). Such medical evidence included: (1) an x-ray of Plaintiff's right knee that revealed only "mild degenerative changes with narrowing of the medial knee joint compartment" and "no sign of a joint effusion"; (2) x-rays of the lumbar spine, right hand, right wrist, and right ankle that revealed normal findings; (3) a consultative examination that showed normal range of motion in bilateral hips, knees, and ankles; (4) a neurological examination that similarly revealed grossly normal findings; and (5) treatment notes that documented good range of motin, normal gait, and normal neurologic examination, despite right knee tenderness. (AR at 241, 265-270, 289-91, 626, 629-30, 633, 637-37, 644, 647, 651.)

Thus, the ALJ properly dicounted Plaintiff's credibility.

Based on the forgoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits.