With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Robert Smith’s lay witness testimony was similar to Smith’s testimony, and the ALJ did not separately address his testimony. Because the ALJ properly discounted the claimant’s similar testimony, the ALJ gave germane reasons for rejecting Robert Smith’s testimony. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir.2009). The ALJ did not err in giving significant weight to the opinion of examining physician Dr. Webster, and discounting the opinions of treating physician Dr. Nelson and examining physician Dr. El-Attar. First, the ALJ’s finding that Dr. El-At-tar’s disability conclusion was inconsistent with her own examination findings is a clear and convincing reason for not relying on the doctor’s opinion. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Second, the ALJ provided clear and convincing

A: holding doctors letter is inadmissible hearsay
B: holding that doctors do not have to accept patients
C: holding that contradictions between a doctors opinion and that doctors own observations is a clear and convincing reason
D: holding that a patients settlement of a prior action brought against him by doctors for payment of a bill did not bar medical malpractice action against doctors
C.