Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0583-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cheryl L. ROWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 07-35817.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 1, 2010.
    Filed June 16, 2010.
    Michael P. Manning, Holland & Hart, LLP, Billings, MT, Scott Elliott Randolph, Holland & Hart, LLP, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Cheryl L. Rowe, pro se.
    Nancy Albert Mishalanie, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Cheryl Rowe appeals the district court’s order affirming a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Specifically, Rowe appeals the basis on which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded her disability benefits.

We grant the government’s motion to strike the additional exhibits submitted by Rowe with her first reply brief to this court. The exhibits are not part of the administrative record upon which this court must base its review. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2000). See also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

We review the district court’s decision de novo. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). We must affirm the ALJ’s decision, if it is supported by substantial evidence and if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. Id. Even if the evidence could support more than one rational interpretation, we defer to the ALJ’s decision as long as it is among the rational interpretations. Id.

The evidence in the record here supports more than one rational interpretation. The ALJ’s determination that Rowe’s disability results from the combined effects of physical and mental disorders is among those rational interpretations. In reaching his determination, the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.

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