F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012), we reverse and remand. 1. The Appeals Council evaluated Claimant’s supplemental evidence and properly incorporated it into the record, along with the Appeals Council’s determination that the supplemental evidence did not provide a ground for changing the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir.2012). The Appeals Council was not required to make any particular evidentiary finding. Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1231-32 (9th Cir.2011). 2. The ALJ provided “clear and convincing” reasons to reject Claimant’s subjective testimony, including contrary medical evidence and self-reports of everyday activities. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Claimant could, for example, play computer
holding that an alj may reject a claimants subjective testimony in reliance on reports of activities of daily living that are transferable to a work setting holding that an alj may consider a claimants household activities in evaluating complaints of disabling pain holding that the alj did not err in discounting a claimants reports of pain where they were not supported by the medical record holding that the alj must make findings setting forth specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in order to reject the contradicted opinion of a treating physician holding that the alj properly relied on medical evidence undermining claimants subjective assessment of limitations