Css

MEMORANDUM *

Doria King appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of King’s application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits.

1. The ALJ did not have any duty to recontact Dr. Hirokawa to clarify any inadequacies in Dr. Hirokawa’s report. The ALJ relied on parts of Dr. Hirokawa’s report when she assessed King’s residual functional capacity and, “with support in the record, found the evidence adequate to make a determination regarding [King’s] disability.” See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.2005). The record does not show that Dr. Hirokawa’s report was inadequate or incomplete. 20 C.F.R. § 416 .919p(b) provides that, only if a physician’s “report is inadequate or in *210 complete ... will [the ALJ] contact the medical source who performed the consultative examination ... and ask that the medical source furnish the missing information or prepare a revised report.” Thus, “the ALJ did not have a duty to recontact” Dr. Hirokawa. See Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217…

dissenting.

An ALJ is not bound by the medical opinions of the treating or examining physicians, but if he does not accept an expert’s uncontroverted opinion he must provide “clear and convincing reasons” for its rejection. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1990) (internal citation omitted). The ALJ in this case rejected all of Dr. Hirokawa’s conclusions as to King’s “mild to moderate” limitations in various functions because the terms were “too vague to be useful ... in evaluating the claimant’s residual functional capacity.” Courts, physicians, vocational experts, including the expert in this case, and other ALJs use the term “mild to moderate” to describe and assess claimants’ limitations without any difficulty. See, e.g., Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2007) (ALJ finding “mild to moderate” deficiencies in concentration, persistence and pace); Roberson v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir.2007) (medical opinion noting “mild to moderate” limitations in concentration, persistence and pace); Hillier v. Social Sec. Admin., 486 F.3d 359, 363 (8th Cir.2007) (vocational expert testimony regarding “mild to moderate” pain); Johnson v. Barnhart, 434…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 30 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

DORIA M. KING, No. 11-15348

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01940-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

Argued and Submitted May 15, 2012 San Francisco, California

Before: REINHARDT, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Doria King appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner

of Social Security’s denial of King’s application for Supplemental Security Income

under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm. Substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1. The ALJ did not have any duty to recontact Dr. Hirokawa to clarify any

inadequacies in Dr.…