Holland

dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent from the decision to reverse the district court and to award disability benefits. The Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits may be overturned “only if it is not supported by substantial evidence.” Morgan v. Apfel, 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir.1999). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a decision.” Id. Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld. Id.; see also Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720-21 (9th Cir.1998) (“If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing the Secretary’s conclusion, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary.”).

First, the ALJ found that the work restrictions assessments proffered by Holland’s treating physicians were inconsistent with the medical evidence. The ALJ may only reject a treating physician’s opinion for clear and convincing reasons. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir.2001). The ALJ, however, need not accept a treating physician’s opinion that is brief, conclusory, and unsubstantiated by…

MEMORANDUM **

Delores Holland appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which affirmed the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Holland raises two issues on appeal. First, Holland argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred when she rejected the opinions of Holland’s treating physicians. Second, Holland argues that the ALJ did not articulate legally sufficient reasons in determining that she lacked credibility with respect to her pain testimony. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand for payment of benefits.

I.

Although the ALJ found that Holland suffered from severe probable hereditary sensory motor neuropathy and lumbar disc disease, she concluded that Holland had the ability to perform sedentary work. The ALJ rejected the opinions of Holland’s two treating physicians, Dr. Thomas Duralde and Dr. David Edelman, who concluded that Holland did not have sufficient residual functional capacity to perform any work. The ALJ credited the opinion of a non-examining doctor, who reviewed Holland’s medical…