Kager

MEMORANDUM **

Linda D. Kager (“Kager”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We agree with Kager’s contention that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”), in assessing Kager’s residual functional capacity, failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of Kager’s treating physician, Dr. Blaski. She stated that Kager was disabled following a low-impact motor vehicle accident in February 1996. 1 Although the opinion of Dr. Blaski was contradicted by the non-examining physician Dr. Knudsen, “a treating physician’s opinion on disability, even if controverted, can be rejected only with specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir.1998).

In his decision, 2 the ALJ acknowledged that Dr. Blaski opined in 1996 that Kager was disabled, but apparently gave that opinion no weight because it was set forth in “brief, conclusory remarks without reference to specific limitations and…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The ALJ’s findings may be set aside only if they were based on legal error, or were not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 1 Neither standard is met.

In addition to Dr. Knudsen’s expert assessment of Kager’s treating physicians, the ALJ independently considered the testimony and reports of all of Kager’s treating physicians. The ALJ based many of his conclusions on the presence of conflicting evidence presented by Kager’s own treating physicians, including Dr. Blaski, Dr. Eisenhauer, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Virji.

Further, the ALJ fairly considered Kager’s subjective pain allegations. Here, the ALJ relied on ample objective evidence in the form of treating physician reports and lab reports to conclude that Kager’s testimony was not convincing.

Accordingly, we should affirm the ALJ’s decision which was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

. Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir.2004).

. See Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 359 F.3d 1190 , 1196—1197 (9th Cir.2004).