Papen
Papen v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
April Papen appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The panel’s review is “essentially the same as that undertaken by the district court.” Stone v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 530, 532 (9th Cir.1985). In both cases, the court determines whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by “substantial evidence.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). “Substantial evidence” is “more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” . Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir.1988) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
1. Papen has waived her argument that the ALJ improperly rejected the testimony *207 of Dr. Barlow, because she raised it for the first time on appeal. As a general rule, this court does not consider issues that were not raised before the district court. See Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir.2001). “This circuit has recognized three exceptions to this rule: [ (1) ] in the…