Albert Helmke v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Albert Jack Helmke appeals from an adverse judgment in this social security disability ease. We review the district court’s judgment de novo, Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.2001), and must affirm the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration if it is not based on legal error and it is supported by substantial evidence, Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.1998).

1. Helmke failed to raise his arguments against Dr. Cousino’s May 1987 residual functional capacity assessment, and the vocational expert’s testimony based on that opinion, in the district court. Therefore, those arguments are waived. Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2006); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir.2006).

2. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly evaluated the medical evidence. Dr. Pletz’ and Dr. Luisi’s statements that Helmke could not work are not “medical opinions” because such a decision is reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (e)(1). Additionally, the ALJ reasonably concluded that any opinion from Helmke’s treating physicians that he could not work should be discounted…