Cynthia Frampton v. Commissioner Social Security A

MEMORANDUM

Cynthia Frampton appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the determination of the administrative law judge (ALJ) that Frampton is not disabled and is therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits. We affirm.

The ALJ did not deny Frampton due process by ending the hearing before Frampton’s testimony had concluded and without hearing the testimony of her husband, James Frampton. The ALJ’s decision to allot only one hour for the hearing causes some concern, but the ALJ offered to consider a supplemental hearing in Portland and allowed Frampton to submit written testimony in lieu of an additional hearing. Those alternatives afforded Frampton an adequate opportunity to be heard. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). Frampton’s due process rights were not violated.

The ALJ’s decision to discredit the controverted opinion of treating physician Dr. Kent was based on specific and legitimate reasons that were supported by substantial evidence. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1285 (9th Cir.1996). The ALJ discredited Dr. Kent’s opinion based on inconsistencies within his own reports and contradictions between…