Rachell Saenz v. Michael Astrue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RACHELL N. SAENZ, No. 08-17405
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05102-VRW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vaughn R. Walker, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Rachell N. Saenz appeals the district court’s judgment entry of summary
judgment in favor of the Commissioner. We review de novo the district court’s
grant of summary judgment. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(per curiam). We affirm if substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and
the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. Id.
We conclude the ALJ properly discounted the opinion of Saenz’s primary
care physician, Dr. Fordham, because the ALJ provided “specific and legitimate
reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d
821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ noted Dr.
Fordham’s own treating notes reported Saenz’s Langerhans cell histiocytosis
(LCH) was stable, and therefore did not support Dr. Fordham’s conclusion that
Saenz could not work. The ALJ properly credited the opinion of an examining
pulmonary specialist as to the effects of Saenz’s pulmonary disorder over that of
Dr. Fordham, who is not a pulmonary specialist. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(5).
In addition, two other doctors concluded Saenz’s medical records did not show
residual effects from her LCH. We conclude that substantial evidence supported
the ALJ’s conclusion that Saenz could perform certain sedentary work.
Second, the ALJ did not improperly disbelieve Saenz’s subjective
complaints because he gave clear, convincing, and specific reasons for discrediting
them. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 834. Specifically, he discredited Saenz’s claims of
debilitating eye pressure based on the opinion of an ophthalmologist who treated
and examined Saenz. He discredited Saenz’s claims of heart problems and other
2
symptoms, including fatigue, tied to her LCH, based on the testimony of a
cardiologist who testified based on her treating records that she exhibited no
residual symptoms.
Third, we reject Saenz’s claim the Appeals Council erred in refusing to
review her case based on an additional retroactive medical source statement (MSS)
from Dr. Fordham. When a claimant submits new evidence, the Appeals Council
reviews the ALJ’s decision if, in light of the entire record including the new
evidence, the ALJ’s decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.970(b). Here, the MSS report simply restated Fordham’s opinion Saenz
could not work, an opinion substantial evidence contradicts.
Fourth, the ALJ did not err by not further developing the record for an
unrepresented claimant. The ALJ sufficiently developed the record to support his
conclusion that Saenz could perform certain sedentary work. See Higbee v.
Sullivan, 975 F.2d 558, 561 (9th Cir 1992).
AFFIRMED.
3