Sheffer

Sheffer v. Barnhart

Good Law
45 F. App'x 644
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 21, 2002No. 01-35398; D.C. No. CV-99-06272-MACalifornia585 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Did Not Improperly Reject Any Medical Opinions

Treating doctors other than Drs. Swank and Steffen concluded that Sheffer had neither multiple sclerosis nor any other disabling physical impairment. Because the ALJ was entitled to resolve this evidentiary conflict between conflicting opinions of equal weight, he did not need to provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the Swank and Steffen opinions. 1 Even if the specific and legitimate reasons standard applied, the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting the Swank and Steffen opinions — such as the fact that their conclusions were based primarily on Sheffer’s less-than-credible subjective complaints, and contradicted by a considerable amount of objective medical evidence — would have been specific and legitimate.

The ALJ did not reject any of Dr. Gree-nough’s opinions. The ALJ expressly accepted Dr. Greenough’s “major depression” opinion and incorporated it into his analysis. The other statements to which Sheffer points are not opinions. They merely point out something this circuit’s law has long recognized: that a person can be…

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.