Catherine Doney v. Michael Astrue

Good Law
485 F. App'x 163
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 5, 201211-35561California1,390 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Catherine A. Doney (“Doney”) appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”), entered pursuant to the order granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner and affirming the denial of social security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review a district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo. Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir.2009). We will affirm the district court’s order if the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and by a correct application of the applicable law. Id. “This is a highly deferential standard of review: Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Where the evidence as a whole can support either a grant or a denial, we may not substitute our judgment for the ALJ’s.” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir.2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

First,…

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.