Case ID: f-appx_237/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Keri-John MENDOZA; Melissa D. Selice, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-55975.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 17, 2007.
    Filed June 5, 2007.
    Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Esq., Law Offices of Lawrence Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Katherine R. Loo, Esq., SSA — Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FISHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.
    
    
      
       Keri-John Mendoza and Melissa D. Selice are substituted as plaintiffs on behalf of Antoinette Maiwurm pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(a)(1).
    
    
      
       Michael J. Astrue is substituted for his predecessor Jo Anne Barnhart as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
      The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

In 2006, Antoinette Maiwurm appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, arguing that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not properly consider her treating and examining physicians’ opinions relating to the impact of her mental health on her ability to work. After filing her notice of appeal, Maiwurm died. Maiwurm’s death mooted her Title XVI claim for SSI benefits. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.2007).

Although the ALJ erred in failing to address portions of the treating and examining physicians’ opinions, we conclude that with respect to Maiwurm’s remaining disability claim such error was harmless for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. We therefore affirm the denial of disability insurance benefits.

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