Stefanie Beason v. Carolyn W. Colvin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
STEFANIE LEANN BEASON, No. 13-55766
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01400-WQH-
KSC
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner MEMORANDUM*
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barbara Lynn Major, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: BEA and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and RICE,*** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Thomas O. Rice, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Stefanie Beason appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the denial of
disability benefits. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). We uphold
the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) disability determination “unless it contains
legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Id.
Beason raises a single argument on appeal: that the ALJ ignored and
improperly rejected the testimony of the medical expert, called by the ALJ herself,
who opined that Beason met the listing for affective disorders. This argument
lacks merit. Because the medical expert neither examined nor treated the claimant,
the ALJ was required only to “consider” the expert’s testimony in conjunction with
other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Here, the ALJ weighed the
medical expert’s testimony against the reports of three other non-examining
consultants and assigned less weight to the medical expert’s testimony because it
was less consistent with Beason’s course of treatment and the record as a whole.
See id. § 404.1527(c)(2) (providing factors for the ALJ to consider in assigning
relative weight to medical opinions). It is well settled that the ALJ is tasked with
-2-
determining the credibility of medical testimony and resolving conflicts and
ambiguity in the record. See, e.g., Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th
Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
-3-