Galadjian

MEMORANDUM **

Susanna Galadjian (“Galadjian”) appeals the district court’s 2006 order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

We decline to review the arguments raised and addressed in the district court’s 2000 order. Galadjian failed to timely appeal that remand order and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it applied the law of the case doctrine. See Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266, 269 , 118 S.Ct. 1984 , 141 L.Ed.2d 269 (1998); United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 948-49 (9th Cir.2004).

When the Appeals Council rejected Dr. Bercel’s opinion, it provided specific, legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence in the record. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir.1995). Therefore, it properly rejected Dr. Bercel’s non-examining opinion.

However, the Appeals Council did not provide specific, legitimate reasons for adopting the hypothetical based on Dr. Jabat’s opinion rather than the hypothetical based on Dr. Schatz’s opinion. An examining physician’s opinion is generally given more weight than a non-examining…