Case Name: Tamara S. SHAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-07
Citations: 253 F. App'x 707
Docket Number: No. 05-16679
Parties: Tamara S. SHAW, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 253
Pages: 707–708

Head Matter:
Tamara S. SHAW, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 05-16679.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 16, 2007.
Filed Nov. 7, 2007.
David Joseph Linden, Esq., Napa, CA, Ralph Wilborn, Esq., Ralph Wilborn, At torney at Law, West Linn, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Mary P. Parnow Fax, SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Michael J. Astrue is substituted for his predecessor, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, as the Commissioner of Social Security. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The ALJ found Ms. Shaw's testimony "fairly credible," and concluded that based on sufficient evidence, her limitations do not restrict her ability to perform her past work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Despite Dr. Dillon's evidence diagnosing Shaw with a severe impairment, sufficient evidence from several other treating and non-treating physicians supports the ALJ's conclusion that Shaw can perform her past work.
The ALJ provided clear and specific reasons for discounting Dr. Dillon's opinions. Opinions of a treating physician may be rejected where there is conflicting opinion and specific, legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence are given. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002). Dr. Dillon's opinions were fairly rejected by conflicting and specific opinions of other treating physicians, Dr. Jordan, Dr. Chandler, and Dr. Bauer. Further, two non-treating physicians contradicted Dillon's testimony.
We AFFIRM the ALJ's decision.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.