Pearsall

Pearsall v. Astrue

Good Law
243 F. App'x 296
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 2, 2007No. 05-35518California484 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ****

Daniel Pearsall appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401 et seq. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we do not recite them here.

We hold that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not improperly discount the medical evidence of Doctors Trueblood and Williams. The ALJ offered specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting portions of Dr. Trueblood’s medical opinion, and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir.1995). Pearsall argues that other evidence in the record supports Dr. Trueblood’s conclusions, but “[wjhere the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing the decision, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir.2007). While Dr. Williams checked a box indicating that he concurred with Dr. Trueblood’s report, his specific findings disputed those aspects of the Trueblood report that…

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.