Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM

Debra Thomas appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her claim for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in finding that Thomas’ impairments did not meet or equal Listing 12.07. He relied on Dr. Crossen’s testimony that Thomas suffered from only mild to moderate restrictions of daily living, social functioning, and concentration; Listing 12.07 requires more than that. That the evidence could have supported a different conclusion from the one the ALJ drew does not prevent his finding from being supported by substantial evidence. See Conahan v. Sebelius, 659 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir.2011).

2. The ALJ also gave “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record,” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir.1998), for assigning little weight to the opinion of Thomas’ treating physician that Thomas is disabled. The treating physician’s opinion was perfunctory and unsupported by specific functional limitations for Thomas. Cf. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir.1988) (ALJ did not…