Laurence Valbush v. Kilolo Kijakazi

discussion of Valbush’s medical history, the ALJ explained that Dr. McGrath’s

opinion was “inconsistent with the record, which does not document lasting

functional abnormalities that would be expected to limit the claimant to such an

extent.” In addition, the ALJ reasoned that Dr. McGrath himself indicated that

Valbush had “significantly improved,” and there was no indication of significant

related functional abnormalities during Dr. McGrath’s contemporaneous

examination of Valbush. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir.

2005) (holding that a finding of contradictions between a doctor’s recorded

observations and later opinion regarding a claimant’s limitations is a clear and

convincing reason for discounting a doctor’s opinion). The ALJ thus gave sufficient

reasons for discounting Dr. McGrath’s opinion.

2. The ALJ also gave sufficient reasons for discounting the opinion of Dr.

Evans, who opined that Valbush could not perform sedentary work, would require

unscheduled breaks, and would be absent more than three times per month. The ALJ

justified his conclusion by noting that Dr. Evans’s opinion was “highly inconsistent

with the record discussed…