Barranco

Barranco v. Barnhart

Good Law
150 F. App'x 690
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 17, 2005No. 05-55112; D.C. No. CV-04-03039-SSCalifornia382 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Victoria Barranco appeals the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-85 . She contends the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to articulate legally sufficient reasons to reject a treating physician’s opinion that her impairments rendered her unable to work. The district court affirmed the denial of benefits, concluding the ALJ provided the requisite “specific and legitimate reasons” *691 to reject the treating physician’s opinion. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

The opinion of a treating physician is entitled to considerable deference. See Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2001). Nonetheless, that opinion is not binding on the ALJ “with respect to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability.” Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). Rather, the ALJ can reject the opinion of a treating physician with “findings setting forth specific, legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.” Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir.2003) (internal…

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.