Dezarie Taylor v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Dezarie Taylor challenges the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny Taylor disability and supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits. “[W]e will disturb the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finding neither, we affirm.

1. The Commissioner’s erroneous reference to an earlier disability onset date than Taylor claimed was harmless. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012).

2. The Commissioner gave specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting the opinions of several of Taylor’s treating and examining healthcare providers. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). For example, the opinions of examining psychologists Michael Brown, Ph,D. and Melinda Losee, Ph.D., and treating licensed mental health counselor Diane Hanson, were inconsistent with Taylor’s treatment notes. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014). Examining consultant Mark Heilbrunn, M.D.’s opinion, was contrary to Taylor’s…