Matthew Allen v. Commissioner of Social Securit

Good Law
498 F. App'x 696
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 19, 201211-16628California1,088 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Mathew S. Allen appeals the district court’s order affirming the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) denying his application for disability benefits. We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of benefits. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008). We may reverse the Commissioner’s decision only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Allen argues that the ALJ erred by rejecting Dr. Baron’s medical opinions because they were mixed with opinions that Allen was disabled and that there were no jobs available for him. An impairment is a purely medical condition, but “a disability is an administrative determination of how an impairment ... affects [the claimant’s] ability to engage in gainful activity.” McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir.2011). A treating physician’s opinion on the availability of jobs and whether a claimant is disabled are opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 (d)(l)-(2), 416.927(d)(l)-(2). A treating source’s opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner can…

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.