Vitela

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Vitela appeals the decision of the magistrate judge denying his claim to disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. The parties are familiar with the facts, and we do not repeat them here.

I

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) that Vitela retained the ca *717 pacity to perform light exertional-level work. The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons to discount the opinion of a treating physician regarding Vitela’s physical limitations. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1996). As we have held, “[t]he ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002). The ALJ also appropriately rejected medical reports from three Department of Social Services physicians to the extent that they relied on Vitela’s subjective pain complaints. When physicians’ opinions differ, greater weight is generally given to specialist opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(5). The ALJ’s conclusion that these reports were contrary to…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. As I explain below, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings before the ALJ.

In order to establish disability, 1 Vitela needed to show that he was unable to do light exertional work for at least 12 consecutive months during the relevant time period, from February 1992 to December 1997. The ALJ, however, rejected all the evidence that Vitela had to offer. He rejected Vitela’s testimony and Vitela’s wife’s testimony. He rejected the medical opinion of the physician who treated Vitela for the longest period of time, and the medical opinion of Vitela’s treating psychologist. He also rejected the medical opinions of three doctors for the Department of Social Services (“DSS”). Instead, the ALJ relied solely upon medical evidence from the first year of, and from after, the relevant time period.

Of course, under our case law, the ALJ was entitled to do so, so long as he provided sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the evidence that supported Vitela’s claim. I agree with the majority that the ALJ provided “clear and convincing” and “germane” reasons, respectively, for finding that Vitela and his wife were not…