Css
Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Raylena Rogers appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security in come benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s judgment upholding the denial of social security benefits. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 583 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008). We must affirm the denial of benefits unless it is based on legal error or the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir.2009).
Rogers contends the ALJ erred in evaluating two reports from Ronald Portnoff, M.D., a consulting orthopedic specialist who examined Rogers in July 2007 and September 2008. An ALJ must give clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the uncontroverted opinion of an examining physician. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995). Here, the ALJ did not reject Dr. Portnoffs opinion. Dr. Portnoffs 2007 report reflected Rogers’s temporary orthopedic condition before she became medically stationary. It was not probative of Rogers’s…