Cha Yang v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM **

Cha Yang appeals the district court’s affirmance of the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

1. Res Judicata.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) failed to cite Yang’s changed circumstances and thus misapplied the res judicata principles set forth in Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691, 698 (9th Cir.1988). In formulating Yang’s residual functional capacity (RFC), however, the ALJ in fact weighed Yang’s medical evidence. Any error was therefore harmless. See Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 859 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir.2004) (an error is harmless where it does not negate the validity of the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion).

2. Analysis of the Evidence.

a. Medical Testimony. The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of Drs. Shaffer and Damania. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir.1995).

The ALJ explained that Dr. Shaffer’s report was an outlier, contradicted by almost all other medical evidence, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion…

dissenting.

Yang was admirably frank in letting many of his doctors and caregivers know that the only reason he was seeking mental health treatment was to strengthen his case to receive social security disability payments. Not surprisingly, the ALJ concluded that he was malingering and that his claims regarding the intensity of his symptoms were not credible. This conclusion was clearly supported by substantial evidence, that is, “ ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir.1988)). In holding otherwise, the majority not only casts aside our deferential standard of review, but also ignores the obvious.

The record is replete with evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination that Yang was malingering and his claims were not *207 credible. According to Dr. Sarah Morgan, a physician at the Fresno County mental health clinic Yang attended, Yang admitted that “the reason he came to [the mental health] program [was] to get more points for SSI because his lawyer told him so.” In…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 06 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHA YANG, No. 10-17590

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01495-DLB

v.

MEMORANDUM *

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2012 ** San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, FISHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Cha Yang appeals the district court’s affirmance of the denial of his

application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part,

reverse in part and remand.

1. Res Judicata. The administrative…