Zamora

Zamora v. Barnhart

Good Law
105 F. App'x 893
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 2, 2004No. 02-16589; D.C. No. CV-01-20736-JFCalifornia572 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Claimant Leanne Zamora appeals a decision of the district court affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s finding that she was not disabled under the Social Security Act. We will affirm a finding that a claimant is not disabled if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir.1986). Because the Commissioner failed to enunciate findings with the specificity required by this Court, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Since the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we need not recount it here.

To determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), we have required the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to resolve conflicts and ambiguities in the medical testimony. This responsibility requires the ALJ to determine “whether inconsistencies are material (or are in fact inconsistencies at all) and whether certain factors are relevant to discount” medical opinions. Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 603 (9th Cir.1999).

The ALJ dismissed Dr. Madireddi’s opinion because it was based on subjective complaints with no objective basis. While brief and…

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.