N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KHALID AHM AD HAM ED,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-55165 D.C . No. 8:14-c v-01639- KES

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Kare n E. Sc ott, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 30, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A , FISHER , a nd B YB EE, C irc u i t Judge s. Appe lla nt Kha l id Ahm a d Ha

m e d a pplie d for Soc ia l Se c urity disa bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc o m e . He a lle ge d a disa bility 

# F IL ED SEP 06 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).ste m

m ing from

a va rie ty of a ilm e nts, inc l uding hepatitis B (whic h the n le d to
c irrhosis, a

n e nla rge d sple e n , a

n d a pla te le t de fic ie nc y ), c hronic swe l ling in his right le g, a

nd ba c k a nd ne c k pa in. An Administra tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) found that a lthough Ha

m e d’ s c onditions were se v e re , he c o uld still pe rform c e rta in kinds of work. In re a c hing this c o nc l usion, theALJ disc ounte d the opinion offe re d by Dr. Sam ir Az z am , one of Ham e d’ s tre ating phy sic ia ns, a nd re lie d inste a d on the opinions of Drs. D. Cha

n a nd Irvine B e lz e r, ne ithe r of whom a c tua lly tre ate d or
e xam ine d Ha

m e d. The ALJ’ s de nia l of Ha m e d ’ s a pplic ation wa s a ffirm e d

by the distric t c o urt. This a ppe a l followe d. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291
and 42 U.S.C . § 405(g), a n d we a ffirm
. Ham e d ra ise s a

single c o nte ntion on a

ppe a l: tha

t the ALJ e rre d by disc ounting the

opinion of Dr. Az z am , in fa vor of the opinions of non-tre at ing,
non-e x am ining phy sic ia

ns. “ A s a ge ne ra l rule , m ore we ight should be give n to the opinion of a

tre ating sourc e tha

n to the opinion of doc tors who do not tre at the
c la im ant.” Turne r v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 613 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th C ir. 2010) (c ita tion omitte d). This rule , howe ve r, is not a bsolute . As we have he l d, “ [w] he re . . . a nontre at ing sourc e ’ s opinion c ontra dic ts tha t of the tre at ing phy sic ia

n but is not ba se d on indepe nde nt c l inic a l findings, or re sts on c linic a l findings also
2c onside re d by the tre ating phy sic ia

n, the opinion of the

tre ating phy sic ia

n m ay be
re je c te d only

if the ALJ give s spe c ific

, le gitimate re asons for doing so tha

t a re ba se d on substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c o rd.” Andre w s v . Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 1995) (e m

pha sis a dde d a

nd c ita tion omitte d). Se e also Orn v
. Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ If the ALJ wishe s to disre ga rd the opinion of the

tre ating phy sic ia

n, he or she m

ust m ake findings se tting forth spe c ific , le

gitimate r e asons for doing so tha t a re ba se d on substa

n tia l e vide nc e in the re c ord.” (e m

pha sis a dde d ) (c ita

tion omitte d)). He re , the opinion of Dr. Az z am , the tre ating phy s ic ia n , wa s c ontra d ic te d by the o pinions of Drs. C h an a nd B e lz e r, e v e n

though the y

a l l re lie d on the sa

m e c linic a l findings. Thus, unde r Andre w s and Orn , t

he dispositive que stion is whe the r the ALJ ga

ve “ spe c ific , le gitim ate re a sons” for disc ounting Dr. Az z am ’ s opinions. The ALJ ga

ve two suc h re a sons. First, she de te rm ine d tha

t Dr. Az z am ’ s opinion wa s unsupporte d b y the re c ord. This a l one is suffic ie nt. Se e Tommase tti
v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2008) (e xpla ining tha t a n “ inc ongruity ” be twe e n a tre ating phy sic i an’ s que stionna ire re sponse s a nd a patie nt’ s m e dic a l
re c o rds is a

“ spe c ific and le gitim a te re a son” for disc ounting the phy s ic ia n’ s opinions). Se c ond, the ALJ disc ounte d Dr. Az z am ’ s c onc lusions be c a use he wa s 3too re lia

nt on Ha m e d’ s own disc re dite d, subje c t ive sta te m e nts a bout his c ondition. This is a n inde p e nde nt ground for disc ounting Dr. Az z am ’ s opinions. Se e id. (“ An ALJ m ay re je c t a tre ating phy sic ia

n’ s opinion if it is base d ‘ to a la rge e x te nt’ on a c la im ant’ s se lf-re ports tha t ha ve be e n prope rly disc o unte d a s inc re dible .” (c ita tion
om i tte d)); Fair v . Bow e n , 885 F.2d 597, 605 (9th C ir. 1989) (holding tha t a tre ating phy sic i a

n’ s re lia nc e on a patie nt’ s own disc re dite d subje c tive c om pla ints is
a spe c ific and le gitim ate re a son for disc ounting the phy sic ia n’ s opinion). Thus, theALJ a de quate ly e xpla ine d he r re a s ons for disc ounting Dr. Az z am ’ s te stim ony . The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D.

4