Case Name: Rafael Barragan OCHOA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-20
Citations: 438 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 10-15880
Parties: Rafael Barragan OCHOA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 438
Pages: 615–617

Head Matter:
Rafael Barragan OCHOA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-15880.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2011.
Filed June 20, 2011.
Steven Gilbert Rosales, Law Office of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jacqueline Anna Forslund, Assistant Regional Counsel, Daniel Paul Talbert, SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before SCHROEDER and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rafael Ochoa appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his applications for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits under Titles XVI and II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ochoa argues that the administrative law judge ("ALJ") improperly disregarded Dr. Carrillo's opinion. This claim lacks merit. The ALJ provided several reasons for rejecting Dr. Carrillo's opinion. First, Dr. Carrillo examined Ochoa only once, for the purpose of evaluating whether he could take the citizenship examination, and not for the purpose of determining Ochoa's ability to work. Second, other physicians who treated Ochoa opined that his seizures did not affect his daily activities and did not warrant any disability. Lester v. Cha ter, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995) ("As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant."). Lastly, although Dr. Carrillo noted that Ochoa could not remember the date, time, or year, or make sense of figures or puzzles, Ochoa himself admitted that when he did not have seizures, he did well with concentration and memory. The ALJ's specific reasons for rejecting Dr. Carillo's opinion are legitimate and supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 830-31.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.