McConner

McConner v. Barnhart

Good Law
125 F. App'x 769
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 2, 2005No. 04-55220; D.C. No. CV-03-05499-CTCalifornia316 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Michael McConner appeals the magistrate judge’s summary judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny him social security benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner adopted the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that McConner was not disabled under the Act because he had the residual functional capacity to perform a significant range of light work. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse the judgment of the magistrate judge with instructions to remand to the ALJ for an award of benefits.

The ALJ improperly disregarded the opinion of Dr. Compton, McConner’s examining physician, and Dr. Moore, McConner’s treating physician. To disregard the uncontradicted opinion of an examining physician or a treating physician, an ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995). If contradicted by another doctor, as here, an examining or a treating physician’s conclusions may be rejected only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 830-31 . The ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate…

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.