Negrete

Negrete v. Barnhart

Good Law
186 F. App'x 734
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 20, 2006No. 04-16482California411 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Claimant John Negrete appeals the decision of the district court, which affirmed a denial of his applications for disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. We affirm.

1. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) permissibly found Claimant not to be fully credible in testifying to the extent of his limitations. Three examining doctors (Dr. McEllistrem, Dr. Azra, and Dr. Simon) specifically found Claimant to be malingering, feigning, or exaggerating his symptoms, which is a valid reason for rejecting a claimant’s testimony. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2004). Additionally, the ALJ permissibly relied on additional factors, such as a 10-month hiatus in treatment. See Floten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1464 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that an ALJ is entitled to draw a negative inference from a lack of medical care for a significant period).

2. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s rejection of the opinion of Claimant’s treating physicians. First, Dr. Ateheson’s conclusions are in the form of a checklist, and the treating notes do not provide “objective medical evidence of the limitations…

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.