Cain

MEMORANDUM ***

Jennifer Cain (“Cain”) appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security *756 (“Commissioner”). The district court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying Cain Social Security Income (“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq. The ALJ concluded, on the basis of step five in the five-step sequential analysis in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a)-(f), that Cain was not “disabled” within the meaning of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382c, because she retained the residual functional capacity to perform “a significant number of jobs available within the regional and national economies.”

Cain contends on appeal that the ALJ should have accorded greater weight to the opinions of her treating and examining physicians and that he erred by not considering the effect of her chronic obesity on her residual functional capacity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s decision affirming the ALJ, Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003), and we reverse and remand for an award of benefits.

I.

The ALJ rejected…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the decision to reverse the district court’s judgment and the remand for an award of disability benefits.

The opinions of Cain’s treating and examining physicians were contradicted by several non-treating doctors. 1 Consequently, the ALJ could rightly reject the treating and examining physicians’ opinions as long as he provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 . Substantial evidence is defined as “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir.1992)). It is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.2001). I conclude that the ALJ’s decision met these standards.

The ALJ rejected the opinions of Drs. Dimitman and Weissbein, Cain’s treating physicians, and Dr. Grier, an examining physician. Collectively, these doctors opined that Cain’s mental impairments left her completely unable to work. Rather than relying on these diagnoses the…