Case ID: f-appx_487/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Janet GRIMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35707.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 11, 2012.
    Tim Wilborn, Wilborn Law Office, PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, Lisa Goldoftas, Assistant Regional Counsel, SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Janet Grimes’s application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. Grimes appeals. We review a district court’s decision in a social security case de novo. Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.2008). The decision of the ALJ must be upheld if it is free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record, and we agree with the reasoning and conclusion set forth in the district court’s June 20, 2011 order. The ALJ offered specific, clear, and convincing reasons regarding the conflicting objective and subjective evidence to support his adverse credibility finding against Plaintiff. The ALJ also properly discounted the testimony of Plaintiffs husband based upon similar contradictions with the objective evidence in the record. The ALJ did not err in rejecting the opinion of Plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Jennifer D. Simpson. “A physician’s opinion of disability ‘premised to a large extent upon the claimant’s own accounts of [her] symptoms and limitations’ may be disregarded where those complaints have been ‘properly discounted.’ ” Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 605 (9th Cir.1989)). Dr. Simpson noted on each page of her report that the limitations contained therein were merely subjective descriptions reported by Plaintiff, so the ALJ effectively rejected Plaintiffs subjective complaints, not the medical opinion of Plaintiffs physician. Finally, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for his decision that Plaintiff was able to perform sedentary work, which are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

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