Kent

Kent v. Barnhart

Good Law
32 F. App'x 954
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 16, 2002No. 01-15411; D.C. No. CV-99-06649-SMSCalifornia246 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ****

Andrea Kent appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits, reviewing for substantial evidence and legal error the Commissioner’s decision. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of benefits because Kent failed to meet her burden to establish that her obesity, hypertension, right-eye blindness, abdominal hernia, and lower back pain, constituted a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit her ability to do basic work activities. See Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the ALJ properly determined that Kent was not disabled. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.1999).

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s rejection of Kent’s subjective pain testimony because the ALJ made specific findings to support his determination that Kent’s…

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.