Nancy Fuller v. Michael Astrue

Good Law
471 F. App'x 782
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 201210-17734California444 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Nancy Fuller appeals the denial of her application for social security disability insurance benefits. Because we conclude that the Commissioner’s decision was based on the correct legal standards and supported by substantial evidence, Pagter v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

1. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”), whose decision the Commissioner affirmed, articulated specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Riley, Fuller’s treating physician. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir.2007). The ALJ noted that specialists who examined Fuller disagreed with Dr. Riley’s conclusion that she was disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(5). Dr. Lee noted that Fuller’s myeloproliferative disease did not cause symptoms and that she felt well; Dr. Lipschultz noted that Fuller’s lungs were generally clear and that she stabilized nicely with medication; and Dr. Dilla analyzed an MRI of Fuller’s back and concluded that she was not disabled. The ALJ also observed that Dr. Riley’s opinions were conclusory and did not provide supporting evidence. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1045 (9th Cir.2007).

2. The ALJ did not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.