the ALJ cannot assume that these particular activities conflicted with her self-reports. This is further error. The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for assigning only “little to no weight” to the opinion of Dr. Neiman because his opinion was inconsistent with the medical evidence and her reported activities. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming ALJ’s finding that fibromyalgia plaintiffs allegations of disabling pain were undermined by plaintiffs daily activities). The ALJ erred in giving little weight to Mr. Wheatley’s lay testimony because he actually based his testimony on his own observations rather than Wheatley’s subjective complaints. Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Although the ALJ erred in evaluating Dr.
holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician holding that an alj cannot discredit lay testimony solely because it is not supported by medical evidence in the record recognizing that an alj must minimally articulate his reasons for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability holding that the alj gave inadequate reasons for rejecting wifes lay opinion testimony holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible