Case ID: f-appx_571/html/0522-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roberta Macdonald ACORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-35933.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2014.
    
    Filed April 23, 2014.
    John Edward Seidlitz, Jr., Seidlitz Law Office, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jennifer Randall, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration General Counsel’s Office, Region VIII, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberta MacDonald Acord (Acord) appeals the district court’s order that granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) and upheld the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) to deny Acord’s application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Substantial evidence supported the decision of the ALJ to accord the treating physician’s opinion little weight. The ALJ discounted Dr. Cohan’s opinion that Acord was disabled because determination of a claimant’s ultimate disability is a decision reserved for the Commissioner. See McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 884-85 (9th Cir.2011), as amended. Moreover, Dr. Cohan reached his conclusion after one visit with Acord. See Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the ALJ may discount the opinion of a treating physician who has not seen the patient long enough to develop a “longitudinal picture”). Finally, Dr. Cohan’s opinions were not supported by his treatment notes, which indicated that the results of Acord’s physical examination were normal, and showed improvements while Acord worked.

2. Substantial evidence also supported the ALJ’s determination that Acord’s subjective complaints were not credible. At a minimum, Acord’s ability to work, function independently, and take care of her personal needs were inconsistent with her subjective complaints. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that pain testimony may be undermined by testimony regarding daily activities).

3. The hypothetical the ALJ posed to the vocational expert included all of Acord’s documented limitations. The ALJ was not required to include “other limitations that [Acord] had claimed, but had failed to prove.” Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.