Noe

Noe v. Apfel

Good Law
6 F. App'x 587
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 7, 2001No. 99-36116; D.C. No. CV-98-03083-JPCCalifornia430 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Janice Noe appeals from the denial of her application for disability benefits. We affirm the decision of the district court, which in turn affirmed the decisions of the Commissioner and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ applied an improper legal standard when he found that the opinion of Plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Saville, was unpersuasive. Because Saville’s opinion that Plaintiff was disabled was contradicted by that of another doctor, the ALJ could reject it if he provided “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995) (citation and *588 internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ met his burden in this case. The ALJ pointed to examples in the record where Saville’s notes seem to contradict her ultimate conclusion. The ALJ also provided a detailed summary of the conflicting evidence.

Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ applied an improper standard when he discounted the opinion of Plaintiffs mental health counselor, Downs. We are not persuaded. Downs is not a licensed physician or psychologist and, thus, is not an…

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.