Tana Gerard v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Tana Gerard appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

I

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for disregarding the contradicted opinions of Gerard’s examining and treating clinicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir.1995).

The ALJ properly disregarded Nurse Practitioner Sally Lydon’s 2007 opinion that Gerard was “disabled” because Lydon’s 2006 treatment notes acknowledge that Lydon had “never known [Gerard] to be truly physically disabled” and that “not really much has changed” since a 1996 functional evaluation found Gerard capable of full-time work. Contradiction between a source’s opinion and her treatment notes provides a sufficient basis to discount her opinion. See, e.g., Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir.2008); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005).

The ALJ properly disregarded Dr. MaryAnn Evans’s opinion…