Kennelly
Kennelly v. Astrue
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Diane Kennelly appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of Social Security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
A district court’s decision upholding the ALJ’s denial of Social Security disability benefits is reviewed de novo. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008). “The Secretary’s decision to deny benefits will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or it is based on legal error.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1989).
A.Rejection of Dr. Salk’s Work Related Limitations Opinion
Kennelly first contends that the ALJ erred in disregarding the work-related limitations opinion of Dr. Salk. “While the ALJ may disregard the opinion of a treating physician, whether or not controverted, the ALJ may reject an uncontroverted opinion of a treating physician only for clear and convincing reasons.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751 ). Although Dr. Salk’s opinion was uncontroverted, we reject Kennedy's argument because the ALJ provided a “clear and…