Case Name: Patricia GARCIA, 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: 2016-08-24
Citations: 668 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 14-16435
Parties: Patricia GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 714–716

Head Matter:
Patricia GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-16435
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 22, 2016
Filed August 24, 2016
Lawrence David Rohlfing, Cyrus Safa, Law Offices of Lawrence Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA.
Jeffrey James Lodge, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Sharon Lahey, Assistant Regional Counsel, San Francisco, CA.
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Patricia Garcia appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Garcia's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Garcia contends that the administrative law judge ("ALJ") erred in giving little weight to the medical 'opinion of examining physician Dr. Montgomery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's order de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for giving very little weight to Dr. Montgomery's contradicted opinion that Garcia could not use her upper left extremity. First, the ALJ reasonably found that Dr. Montgomery's opinion was unsupported by his clinical findings showing that Garcia had some reduced range of motion, but not a complete inability to use her left arm in a work environment. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that when an ALJ is evaluating conflicting medical opinions, the ALJ need not accept a medical opinion that is inadequately supported by clinical findings). Second, the ALJ properly gave little weight to Dr. Montgomery's opinion because his opinion appeared to rely upon Garcia's subjective complaints, which the ALJ found were not credible, and Garcia does not challenge this finding on appeal. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that an ALJ may reject a medical opinion relying upon a claimant's self-reporting that was properly discounted as not credible).
Garcia's remaining contentions concerning the ALJ's rejection of Dr. Montgomery's opinion lack merit.
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that Garcia was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir, R. 36-3.