Anita Rushing v. Commissioner Social Security A

MEMORANDUM

Anita F. Rushing appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Rushing Social Security Disability insurance benefits. Because the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision to discredit certain evidence presented by Rushing is supported by substantial evidence and because the ALJ committed only harmless error at step five, we affirm.

“[W]e review de novo the district court’s order upholding a decision of the Commissioner denying benefits to an applicant. The Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed by us if supported by substantial evidence, and if the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted).

We first hold that the ALJ’s decision to discredit certain testimony and statements is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ’s decision to discredit portions of Dr. Weeks’s 2003 Medical Source Statement is supported by the specific, legitimate reason that the Statement is inconsistent with medical opinions made closer in time to Rushing’s last date insured by specialists Dr. Mays and Dr. Hubbard and by Dr. Weeks’s herself. See…