Importantly, it is the province of the ALJ to resolve conflicts and ambiguities in the record, and to “interpret[] terms and phrases used by physicians in their opinions.” Frigon v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2019 WL 2912498, at *4 (D. Ariz. July 8, 2019) 4 (citing Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir. 1995)); see Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The hypothetical that the ALJ posed to the VE contained all of the limitations that the ALJ found credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record.”). Consequently, the ALJ need not adopt, verbatim, the specific work restrictions or limitations any physician or medical provider assigns, only those supported by substantial evidence.

” Frigon v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2019 WL 2912498, at *4 (D. Ariz. July 8, 2019) (citing Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir. 1995)); see Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The hypothetical that the ALJ posed to the VE contained all of the limitations that the ALJ found credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record.”).