Matoba
Matoba v. Barnhart
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Kenneth H. Matoba appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny his application for disability benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s order and we uphold the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal error. Verduzco v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in not specifically addressing the opinions of Matoba’s treating physicians. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1040-41 (9th Cir.1995). However, only one unsigned and unsupported medical record, which is entitled to little if any weight, opined that Matoba was permanently disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 (d)(3), 416.927(d)(3); Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 , 1203 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001). Ml the other medical records from Matoba’s treating physicians were consistent with the opinions of the consulting physicians. Thus, the error was harmless. Cf. Booz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 734 F.2d 1378, 1380 (9th Cir.1984).