Opinion ID: 705675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Treating Physician Testimony

Text: 16 Robinson argues that the ALJ erred in giving Dude's report little weight because of the extensive and more accurate medical records received from the claimant's treating doctors. Robinson contends that both Dude and Radford are treating physicians and that the ALJ improperly rejected the uncontradicted opinion of a treating physician without clear and convincing reasons for doing so. See Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751. We afford greater weight to a treating physician's opinion because 'he is employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as an individual.'  Id. (quoting Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir.1987)). 17 Robinson's contention that Dude is a treating physician is not supported by the record. The ALJ correctly noted that there is no evidence that the claimant is currently using [Dude] as a treating physician. Only two treatment dates are cited and the current medications listed are inconsistent with the list provided by the claimant on the same day. Even if Dude is a treating physician, the the ALJ need not accept a treating physician's opinion which is 'brief and conclusory in form with little in the way of clinical findings to support [its] conclusion.'  Id. (quoting Young v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 963, 968 (9th Cir.1986)). 18 Dude's report is not uncontradicted medical testimony which was rejected in favor of the ALJ's own opinion. The ALJ expressly deferred to more extensive medical information on the record from doctors at Cedars, who unquestionably are treating physicians, and from Dr. Woodward. Where medical reports are inconclusive, questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the Secretary. Id. (internal quotations omitted); Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir.1984). The ALJ did not commit error in discounting Dude's report.