Oltmanns
Oltmanns v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
We affirm the judgment of the district court. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s determination that Oltmanns is not disabled because she retains the capacity to make an adjustment to work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
Although a treating physician’s opinion may be rejected only for clear and convincing reasons, or, if contradicted by another physician, for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence, see Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995), here Dr. Pribnow’s generalized statement that he would support disability retirement for Oltmanns is not a medical *361 opinion that the ALJ had to address specifically. In addition, the variations between the limitations adopted by the ALJ and those imposed by Dr. Pribnow are insubstantial and do not constitute error.
The ALJ did not err in evaluating Oltmanns’ residual functioning capacity. Her opinion makes clear that she properly evaluated Oltmanns’ limitations based on the functions described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (b)-(d). She also took into account Oltmanns’ non-severe impairments as reflected in the medical records when…