Janet Haggerty v. Michael Astrue
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Janet Haggerty appeals the judgment affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision to deny her Social Security claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The ALJ denied Haggerty’s claims because it found her impairments not to be “severe,” see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521 , 416.921, because those impairments did not significantly limit her ability to perform basic work-related activities for twelve consecutive months.
Haggerty summarizes “the principal thrust of the argument” to be that the ALJ “selectively focused on distorted aspects of medical records that resulted in an unjustified finding of non-disability.” Haggerty relies on two cases holding that, before rejecting a treating doctor’s uncon-troverted medical opinion, the ALJ is “required to provide specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (9th Cir.2006); accord Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2001) (“[T]he ALJ was only required to provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting his opinion.”).