Sara Creech v. Carolyn Colvin

Good Law
612 F. App'x 480
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 9, 201514-35499California524 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Sarah L. Creech appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of her 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 . Reviewing de novo, we may set aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or rests on legal error. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir.2014). We affirm.

1. Substantial evidence supports the determination of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) that Plaintiffs depression and anxiety are not severe impairments. The report of the licensed clinical psychologist supports that finding. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir.2012) (holding that an ALJ may give more weight to the opinion of a specialist than to the opinion of non-specialists about issues related to the relevant specialty). The ALJ properly accounted for Plaintiffs mental limitations in the residual functional capacity analysis, which included a finding that Plaintiff could not perform work requiring constant focus.

2. The ALJ permissibly discounted the contradicted opinion of Dr.…

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.