Maria Quesada v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Maria Quesada appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) rejection of the treating physicians’ opinions because the examining physicians’ independent clinical findings differed from the treating physicians’ findings and the medical expert’s testimony undermined the treating physicians’ conclusions. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir.2007) (“[W]hen an examining physician provides independent clinical finding that differ from the findings of the treating physician, such findings are substantial evidence.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 726 (9th Cir.1998) (consistency of treating physician’s report with other medical findings is a legitimate basis for evaluating report’s reliability).

The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence,…