Case Name: John Scott DEPETRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-13
Citations: 584 F. App'x 501
Docket Number: No. 13-35737
Parties: John Scott DEPETRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 501–502

Head Matter:
John Scott DEPETRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-35737.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2014.
Filed Aug. 13, 2014.
Dana C. Madsen, Madsen Law Office, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Pamela J. DeRusha, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, Lisa Goldoftas, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). DePetro’s unopposed motion to submit this appeal on the briefs is GRANTED.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John DePetro appeals the district court's summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. DePetro contends that an administrative law judge ("ALJ") erred in giving limited weight to the opinion of examining psychologist Debra Brown, Ph.D., and in giving greater weight to the opinion of non-examining psychological consultant Edward Beaty, Ph.D. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court's order de novo. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 n. 1 (9th Cir.1995). We may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039.
The ALJ properly rejected Dr. Brown's unsupported opinion that DePetro had "marked" limitations in his relationships with people and his ability to maintain appropriate behavior in the work setting. See Bray v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir.2009); Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1339 (9th Cir.1988) (permitting ALJ to reject medical opinion not supported by objective findings). These limitations were unsupported by Dr; Brown's own notes regarding DePetro's daily activities and mental status exam findings, and were inconsistent with other evidence in the record. See Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1041 (permitting ALJ to reject examining physician's opinion in reliance on non-examining source if that source is supported by other evidence in the record and consistent with it).
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to give greater weight to Dr. Beaty's opinion because that opinion is consistent with other evidence in the record. See Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1041. This includes the opinions of other non-examining consultants, Dr. Brown's notes regarding DePetro's daily activities and mental status exam findings, evidence that DePetro had not received regular treatment, see Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 672 (9th Cir.2012) (permitting ALJ to consider claimant's unexplained failure to seek treatment in weighing credibility), the fact that no treating physician had placed any physical limitations on DePetro, and mental health records from the Community Health Association of Spokane.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.