Samuel Espinoza v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Samuel Espinoza appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Espinoza’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Espinoza alleged disability due to diabetes mellitus, high cholesterol, and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. Espinoza contends that the administrative law judge ignored medical evidence that his condition was worsening. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s order de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012). We may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Espinoza’s disability application. First, the ALJ provided several valid reasons for giving minimal weight to the assessments from Dr. Tepper, Espinoza’s worker’s compensation treating physician. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the ALJ properly discounted treating doctor’s opinions that were…