Case Name: Doria M. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-30
Citations: 475 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 11-15348
Parties: Doria M. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 209–211

Head Matter:
Doria M. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-15348.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed July 30, 2012.
Brian C. Shapiro, Steven Gilbert Rosales, Law Office of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jeffrey James Lodge, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Theophous H. Reagans, II, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, SSA — Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: REINHARDT, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Doria King appeals the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of King's application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits.
1. The ALJ did not have any duty to recontact Dr. Hirokawa to clarify any inadequacies in Dr. Hirokawa's report. The ALJ relied on parts of Dr. Hirokawa's report when she assessed King's residual functional capacity and, "with support in the record, found the evidence adequate to make a determination regarding [King's] disability." See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.2005). The record does not show that Dr. Hirokawa's report was inadequate or incomplete. 20 C.F.R. § 416.919p(b) provides that, only if a physician's "report is inadequate or in complete . will [the ALJ] contact the medical source who performed the consultative examination . and ask that the medical source furnish the missing information or prepare a revised report." Thus, "the ALJ did not have a duty to recontact" Dr. Hirokawa. See Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217.
2. The ALJ properly rejected part of Dr. Hirokawa's report. See Valentine v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 691 (9th Cir.2009). Additionally, the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for rejecting part of the report. The ALJ rejected Dr. Hirokawa's mild to moderate limitations because (1) they were too vague to be useful, and (2) the absence of mental health treatment records meant there was no treating basis for moderate limitations. See Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir.1995).
3. King waived the argument that Dr. Lucila's opinion cleared up any vagueness found in Dr. Hirokawa's report, because King did not raise that argument before the district court. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2006).
4. King also waived the argument that the ALJ had an obligation to properly consider the medical opinions of Dr. Luci-la, because King did not raise that argument before the district court. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.