Krisanne Hensley v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Good Law
600 F. App'x 526
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 14, 201513-35814California493 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Krisanne L. Hensley appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Hensley’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012), and affirm.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight to the opinions of psychologist W. Scott Mabee, Ph.D., who supervised mental health evaluations conducted by counseling therapist Steven E. Erikson and social worker Amy Robinson. First, the ALJ reasonably found that Dr. Ma-bee’s opinions were inconsistent with Erik-son’s and Robinson’s clinical findings. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir.2009) (permitting the rejection of a medical opinion that is inconsistent with clinical findings). Second, the ALJ reasonably determined that Dr. Mabee’s opinion was inconsistent with Hensley’s reported daily activities, which included attending to personal care, cooking, cleaning,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.