Sanfilippo

MEMORANDUM **

Antonio Sanfilippo appeals the district court’s order affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that Sanfilippo is not entitled to Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. The parties are familiar with the facts, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo, see Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir.2004), and reverse.

This court will affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Generally, the administrative law judge will afford more weight to the opinions of treating medical professionals. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2). However, a treating physician’s opinion is not binding. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195 . Where an administrative law judge rejects the opinion of the treating physician in favor of a conflicting…

concurring and dissenting:

I agree that the ALJ erred in his assessment of Dr. Rose’s opinion. However, I disagree as to Dr. Reese, whose opinion is not entitled to the same deference and analysis as that accorded to the opinion of a medical doctor. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 (d)(1); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir.1990), rev’d en banc on other grounds, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir.1991). Thus, I concur in part and, respectfully, dissent in part.