N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDW IN DENNIN, Plaintiff-Appe lla n t,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity De fe nda

nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-16684 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-03686-SK
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Sa llie Kim , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 8, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , LUC ER O * ** and OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Edwin De nnin a

p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s a ffirm anc e of the C om m issione r 

# FIL ED DEC 13 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble C arlos F. Luc e ro, Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by

de signa tion.of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of supple m e nta l se c urity inc om e and disa

b ility insura nc e be ne fits. Exe rc ising jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, we a ffirm
. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s a ffirm anc e of a n Adm inistra

tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) de c ision de novo. Pa rra v. Astrue , 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th C ir. 2007). An ALJ’ s de nia l of be ne fits m ay be se t a side only

if “ ‘ the ALJ’ s findings a

re ba se d on le ga l e rror or a

re not supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord a s a whole .’ ” Id. (quoting Ta c ke tt v. Apfe l, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th C ir. 1999)). “ Substa ntia l
e vide nc e is suc h re le v ant e vide nc e a s a re a sona ble m i nd m ight a c c e pt a s a de quate to support a

c onc lusion.” Id. De nnin a rgue s the ALJ e rre d

by re je c ting theopinion of a

tre a ting phy sic i an.

“ As a ge ne ra l rule , m ore we ight should be give n to the opinion of a tre a ting
sourc e tha

n to the opinion of doc tors who do not tre a t the c la im an t.” Le ste r v. C hate r, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th C ir. 1995) a s a m e nde d (Apr. 9, 1996). Unle ss a tre a ting sourc e ’ s opinion is c ontra dic te d by anothe r doc tor, “ it m ay

be re je c te d only for ‘ c le a r and c onvinc i ng’ re a sons.” Id. (quoting B a xte r v. Sulliva n, 923 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th C ir. 1991)). “ Eve n if the tre a t ing doc tor’ s opinion is c ontra dic te d by an othe r doc tor, the [ALJ] m ay not re j e c t this opinion without providing

‘ s pe c ific and le gitim a te re a s ons’ supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e in the re c ord for so doing.”Id. (quoting M urray v. He c kle r, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th C ir. 1983)). 2The ALJ provide d thre e re a s ons for giving little we ight to the

opinion of De nnin’ s tre a ting phy sic ia n: (1) the phy sic ia

n’ s lim ite d tim e tre a t ing De nnin; (2) he r que stiona

ble obje c tivity ; a

nd (3) he r opinion’ s inc onsiste nc y with the re c ord
and he r tre a tm e nt note s. W e c onc lude the ALJ a de quate ly e xpla ine d the ba se s for
re je c ting thetre a ting phy sic ia n’ s opinion, a

nd tha t the e xpla

nation wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Gha

nim v. C olvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (“ A c onflic t be twe e n tre a tm e n t note s a nd a tre a ting provide r’ s opinions may c onstitute an a de quate re a s on to disc re dit the opinions of a tre a ting phy sic ia

n or anothe r tre a ting provide r.” ); B e nton e x re l. B e nton v. B arnha rt, 331 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th C ir. 2003) (sta

ting tha t we ight a fforde d tre a ting phy sic ia n m ay be vie w e d a s “ a

c o n tinuum

re fle c ting the durat ion of the tre a tm e nt re lationship a nd the fre que nc y

and na ture of the c onta c t” (quoting Ra tto v. Se c ’ y , De p ’ t of He a lth & Hum an Se rvs., 839 F. Supp. 1415, 1425 (D. Or. 1993))); Mat ne y e x re l. M a tne y

v. Sulliva n, 981 F.2d 1016, 1020 (9th C i r. 1992) (holding a n ALJ m ay

give little
we ight to a

tre a ting phy sic ia

n who “ ha d a gre e d to be c om e an a d voc at e ” ). De nnin a lso ra ise s a

num be r of issue s tha

t he did not a dva

nc e be fore the distric t c o urt. “ As a

ge ne ra l rule , a

n a ppe lla t e c o urt will not he ar an issue ra ise d for the first tim e on a

ppe a l.” Whitta

ke r C orp. v. Exe c ua ir C orp., 953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th C ir. 1992). W e m a

y e xe rc ise our disc re tion to e xc use wa ive r to pre ve nt a

3m isc a

rria ge of justic e , if a ne w issue is ba se d on a c h ange in la

w, or if the issue is pure ly one of la w. B olke r v. C om

m ’ r, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th C ir. 1985). Having thoroughly

c onside re d the issue s pre se nte d by De nnin for the first tim e on a ppe a l, we de c l i ne to e xc use his wa ive r. AFFIRM E D
.

4