Astrue

Johnson v. Astrue

Good Law
303 F. App'x 543
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 16, 2008No. 07-35573California433 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Claimant Mark R. Johnson appeals from an adverse judgment on his claim for social security disability benefits. On de novo review, Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152,1156 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

1. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) identified and considered all of Claimant’s severe impairments: osteoarthritis of the knees, depressive disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, personality disorder, social phobia, and substance addiction disorder. The ALJ properly rejected the argument that Claimant’s headaches were a severe impairment, because (among other evidence) Claimant sought treatment only once for a headache between 1994 and 1999, see Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir.2005), and Zomig provided rapid relief for Claimant’s headaches at the time of the hearing. The ALJ properly declined to find that Claimant’s orthopedic problems constituted a severe impairment because the record contains no medical evidence so suggesting.

2. The ALJ properly rejected medical opinions that were remote in time, relying more heavily on more recent opinions. The ALJ also properly rejected a nurse practitioner’s opinion, in favor of a physician’s opinion,…

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.