O'Connell

O'Connell v. Apfel

Good Law
4 F. App'x 366
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 14, 2001No. 99-35374; D.C. No. CV-96-00143-DWM/RFCCalifornia387 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gale O’Connell appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny O’Connell’s application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . “We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.” Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir.1999). The order will be overturned only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. See Schneider v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2000).

“The ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.” Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.1999) (citation omitted). “If a claimant produces evidence that he suffers from an ailment that could cause pain, ‘the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of [his] symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” ’ Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789 , 792 (9th Cir.1997) (alteration in original) (citation…

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.