Helen Butler v. Commissioner Social Security
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Helen Butler appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Butler contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred by failing to provide a legally sufficient rationale for rejecting testifying non-examining medical expert Dr. Gur-vey’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment that she could stand and walk only four to six hours out of an eight hour workday. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.
We review the district court’s order de novo. Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2010). We must affirm if substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 525 (9th Cir.1995). The ALJ need not accept the opinion of a doctor if that opinion is inadequately supported by clinical findings, Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir.2005), and the ALJ must resolve any conflicts in the medical evidence, Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 956-57 (9th Cir.2002).