From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Longerbeam v. Astrue

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 10, 2012
468 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2012)

Summary

finding ALJ was entitled to discount physician's opinion regarding claimant's inability to sustain work because it was based, in part, on speculation

Summary of this case from Yang v. Saul

Opinion

No. 10-56250 D.C. No. 3:09-CV-00864-DMS-PCL

02-10-2012

CARLA A. LONGERBEAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding


Submitted February 8, 2012

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------

Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, O'SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Carla Longerbeam appeals the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court's decision to affirm an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) denial of social security benefits. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001).

The ALJ considered the testimony of Dr. Schorn, a non-examining physician, sufficiently. The ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Schorn's opinion regarding Longerbeam's inability to sustain work, particularly because it was speculative and conflicted with the opinions of several other physicians who treated and examined Longerbeam. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996). No further explanation of the weight given to Dr. Schorn's testimony was required.

In addition, ample medical evidence supports the ALJ's determination that Longerbeam's limitations do not rise to the level of a disability under the Social Security Act.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Longerbeam v. Astrue

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 10, 2012
468 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2012)

finding ALJ was entitled to discount physician's opinion regarding claimant's inability to sustain work because it was based, in part, on speculation

Summary of this case from Yang v. Saul
Case details for

Longerbeam v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:CARLA A. LONGERBEAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 10, 2012

Citations

468 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2012)

Citing Cases

Yang v. Saul

The ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Raju's opinion because it was based on speculation. Longerbeam v.…