Loni Vlasis v. Michael Astrue , 385 F. App'x 622 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LONI VLASIS, No. 09-55794
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00890-DMS-
BLM
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of MEMORANDUM *
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 11, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District
Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
Loni Vlasis appeals the district court’s grant of the government’s motion for
summary judgment on her claim that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
improperly denied her application for disability benefits under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act. We reverse and remand for an award of benefits.
Both of Vlasis’s treating physicians opined that she was markedly limited in
her ability to complete a normal workweek, to get along with coworkers, to
respond appropriately to changes in the work setting, and to perform activities
within a schedule. Therefore, the ALJ had to provide specific and legitimate
reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting those opinions. See
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Contrary to the ALJ’s decision,
the opinions of Dr. Buchert and Dr. Donnelly were not sufficiently rebutted by the
testifying medical expert. The medical expert’s paper review of the doctors’
treatment notes fails to overcome the significant weight this court affords to those
medical professionals who see the patient on a regular basis and can thus more
accurately determine the patient’s work limitations.
We have discretion whether to remand the case for additional evidence or to
award benefits. Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 1989). The
vocational expert testified that the limitations described by the treating physicians
would render Vlasis incapable of performing any work. Therefore, there are no
2
outstanding issues to be resolved that would preclude us from making a disability
determination. Because the treating physicians’ opinions in this case are
controlling, we reverse and remand for an award of benefits.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3