Terrazas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CYNTHIA TERRAZAS, No. 11-16330
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00113-SMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 3, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: CUDAHY ***, TROTT, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
*
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 Richard D. Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
Appellant Terrazas (“Claimant”) appeals the district court’s judgment
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her claim for
disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §
301 et. seq. We review “to ensure that the Secretary’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence and a correct application of the law.” Roberts v. Shalala, 66
F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir. 1995).
She raises three issues. First, whether the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
“erred in failing to discuss listings 1.06 and/or listing 1.02.” Second, “whether the
ALJ should have afforded controlling weight to the opinion of the treating doctor.”
Third, “whether the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons to reject [her]
subjective complaints . . . .” Our review of the record demonstrates that these
issues have no merit. Thus we affirm.
As to the allegation of listings evaluation error, we first note that Claimant
did not raise or rely on listings 1.02 or 1.06 at the administrative level, even though
it was her burden to do so. Roberts, 66 F.3d at 182. Moreover, based on the
evidence before him, the ALJ concluded that “[t]here is no substantial evidence
present in the record that the claimant’s impairments, either singly or in
combination, met or medically equaled the requirements of a listed impairment.”
2
Both Dr. Bugg and Dr. Bonner concurred in this assessment. The record supports
this evaluation. Thus, Claimant’s first issue fails.
As to the ALJ’s handling of her treating physicians, Dr. Coppola and Dr.
McPherson, their opinions were not dispositive if they were not well-supported or
consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ articulated good and sufficient reasons for concluding
that the doctors’ opinions fell short of this standard. Furthermore, Dr.
Zimmerman’s input does not materially support her claims.
Finally, the ALJ concluded that Claimant was not entirely credible, an
assessment also supported by substantial evidence. As the ALJ explained, her
testimony of constant pain all the time was inconsistent with her statements to her
doctors.
On the whole, the ALJ applied the proper legal standard; and his handling of
Claimant’s case was thorough, his consideration of the issues painstaking, and his
decisions well supported by substantial evidence and convincing logic. In sum, we
3
agree with the district court: Claimant simply failed to prove her entitlement to the
benefits she seeks.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Issues raised for the first time on appeal are not properly before us.
Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380, 389 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996); Warre v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir. 2006).
4