Murray

MEMORANDUM *

Jerlyn Murray appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that Murray was not disabled for purposes of obtaining Supplemental Security Income. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

1. The ALJ did not err in rejecting the opinions of Murray’s treating physicians.

First, the ALJ found Dr. Abrams’ conclusion that Murray is disabled to be inconsistent with Abrams’ finding that she can learn to perform all essential functions with her unimpaired right arm. This reason for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion is clear and convincing, and is supported by substantial evidence. Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir.1989).

Second, Dr. Liss’ opinion as to the disabling effect of Murray’s cognitive deficits was contradicted by Dr. Napoletano. Liss’ opinion was not supported by objective clinical findings, while Napoletano’s was. Reliance on Napoletano’s opinion rather than Liss’ for this specific, legitimate reason was therefore proper. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.1989).

2. The…