Case Name: Samuel ESPINOZA, 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: 2015-08-06
Citations: 611 F. App'x 472
Docket Number: No. 13-56677
Parties: Samuel ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 611
Pages: 472–473

Head Matter:
Samuel ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-56677.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 4, 2015.
Filed Aug. 6, 2015.
Lawrence David Rohlfing, Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Judith S. Leland, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith S. Leland, Downey, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Annabelle Yang, Social Security Administration Office Of The General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and 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
Samuel Espinoza appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Espinoza's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Espinoza alleged disability due to diabetes mellitus, high cholesterol, and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. Espinoza contends that the administrative law judge ignored medical evidence that his condition was worsening. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court's order de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012). We may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of Espinoza's disability application. First, the ALJ provided several valid reasons for giving minimal weight to the assessments from Dr. Tepper, Espinoza's worker's compensation treating physician. Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the ALJ properly discounted treating doctor's opinions that were contradicted by other assessments of the claimant's medical condition). Second, the ALJ properly gave considerable weight to the medical opinion of testifying medical expert Dr. Axline. Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1222-23 (9th Cir.2010). Third, the ALJ considered a post-operation examination and assessment of Espinoza by Dr. Silbart, and it was within the ALJ's discretion to conclude that Espinoza's post-operation condition was not disabling within the Social Security disability context. Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1996). Finally, contrary to Espinoza's allegation, the agency did consider post-surgery medical evidence when the ALJ admitted Dr. Silbart's report into evidence after the hearing, and the Appeals Council considered additional . evidence. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that Espinoza was not disabled. Brewes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir.2012).
Espinoza's motion to remand to consider additional medical evidence is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.