Anne Bagby v. Commissioner Social Security

MEMORANDUM

Anne Marie Bagby appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

“We ‘review the district court’s order affirming the [Social Security Administration] Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo ... to ensure that the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and a correct application of the law.’ ” Valentine v. Comm’r Soc., Sec., Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir.1995)) (alterations omitted).

1. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ’s”) reasons for discounting Dr. Richardson’s opinions and Dr. McCarthy’s November 2006 Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) score. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). Dr. Richardson stated that Bagby experienced multiple episodes of decompensation, but there is no evidence in the record of these episodes. His evaluations of Bagby’s limitations also contain internal ■inconsistencies. Similarly, although Dr.…