Evans
Evans v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Jimmie E. Evans appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) final decision denying his application for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434 , 1381-1383f. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.
1. We agree with Evans that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in rejecting the opinions of the treating physician, Dr. Bogart, and the examining physician, Dr. Villanueva, in favor of the opinion of the reviewing physician, Dr. Dragovich. 2 “By rule, the Social Security Administration favors the opinion of a treating physician over non-treating physicians.” Or n v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir.2007). Thus, the medical opinion of a treating physician is to be given more weight and, in fact, controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is mot inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2). If the medical opinion of a treating physician is not given…
Dissenting Opinion
Smith, J.
dissenting:
I would hold that the district court properly affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying Jimmie Evans’s application for social security disability insurance benefits. I address each of the majority’s points in order.
1. The Administrative Law Judge did not err in rejecting the opinions of Dr. Bogart and Dr. Villaneuva. Dr. Bogart’s opinion was based in part on Evans’s self-reporting, which the ALJ found non-credible. An ALJ may appropriately reject a physician’s opinion that is based on a claimant’s non-credible subjective complaints. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (2002). Further, the ALJ’s opin *598 ion pointed to specific and legitimate conflicting clinical evidence when rejecting Dr. Bogart’s opinion. The ALJ noted that Dr. Bogart’s assessment of a “marked” impairment in social functioning was contradicted by his own notes showing that Evans was doing well at community college. Further, contrary to the majority’s assessment, the ALJ did not reject the opinion of Dr. Bogart outright, it specifically considered Dr. Bogart’s opinion insofar as it was supported by the record, in relation to Evans’ interpersonal difficulties.