Henry

MEMORANDUM ***

We affirm the district court’s summary judgment.

Janet Henry was entitled to be advised of her right to counsel. She was so advised, both in writing and orally. And she specifically informed the ALJ, both in writing and orally, that she did not want counsel. Moreover, she received the diligent exploration of the relevant facts by the ALJ to which she is entitled under Key v. Heckler.

As required by Smolen v. Chater, 2 the ALJ made “findings setting forth specific legitimate reasons ... based on substantial evidence in the record” for rejecting some of the conflicting medical opinions. Moreover, there was no need to address obesity separately and explicitly, because there is no evidence that Henry’s obesity itself was disabling. The effect of her obesity on other ailments was taken into account by consideration of the other ailments. In short, as we read the ALJ’s decision, it did consider the ailments in combination.

The ALJ was entitled to reject Henry’s testimony about the severity of her condition (and similar statements made by her friends and family), and instead accept the conflicting evidence regarding her pain level provided by several of the…