Robin Roy v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Robin Roy appeals the denial of her claim for Supplemental Security Income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The ALJ permissibly accorded little weight to Dr. Chan’s opinion. Though a treating physician, Dr. Chan’s opinion could be rejected for specific, legitimate reasons. Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1463 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ noted that Dr. Toews disagreed, Dr. Chan’s opinion was not consistent with Roy’s daily activities, and Dr. Chan’s opinion was not consistent with his treatment notes showing that Roy’s condition improved with medication. Dr. Chan observed in each visit that her mood and affect were normal. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2009); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). Absent observations of unusual mood and affect, Dr. Chan’s diagnosis appeared to be derived from Roy’s self reports. The ALJ found Roy was not credible as to the extent of her symptoms, so the record supported rejection of a diagnosis based on self reports. See id. The ALJ’s rationale was supported by substantial evidence.

2. The ALJ did not err by rejecting…