Court Opinion

ID: 9438685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 05:56:39.66465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:50.778296
License: Public Domain

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to discredit the opinion of Clark’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Suckow, in favor of the opinion of Dr. Stoltzfus. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995). The ALJ incorporated by reference his January 30, 2004 *142decision denying Clark benefits. In that decision, the ALJ offered a host of specific and legitimate reasons to discredit Dr. Suekow’s opinion. Those reasons were supported by the record and are not discussed by the majority.
The majority expresses concern that the ALJ failed to acknowledge that Dr. Stoltzfus examined Clark four-and-a-half years after her date last insured. The majority does not extend similar concern, however, to the fact that Dr. Suckow did not begin treating Clark until July 1999, more than four years after her initial alleged onset date of March 31, 1995, such that the claimant’s evidence was subject to the same criticism. In that context, the failure of the ALJ to discuss the time lapse was not so surprising. More importantly, the claimant does not contend that Clark’s condition improved prior to the examination by Dr. Stoltzfus, so the passage of time is not a persuasive reason to disregard his evaluation.
I would affirm the decision denying benefits.