Trundle v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM

Larry Trundle appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Trundle’s application for social security benefits. Trundle alleges disability due to back pain. At Step Five, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found Trundle could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. On appeal, Trundle makes two core arguments: 1) the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of Trundle’s examining physician, Dr. Berrien; and 2) substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s Step Five decision because the ALJ improperly relied on testimony of past work that was more than 15 years old and the ALJ used the medium medical-vocational rules as a framework. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The ALJ provided “specific, legitimate reasons” supported by “substantial evidence,” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), for her decision to credit Dr. Madireddi over Dr. Ber-rien. Based on the totality of the evidence in the record, “[t]he ALJ may disregard the treating physician’s opinion whether or not that opinion is contradicted.” Magal-lanes v.…