Robert Galarza v. Michael Astrue

454 F. App'x 627

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2011
• Docket: 09-57029
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Robert R. Galarza (“Galarza”) challenges the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that Galarza was not disabled for purposes of disability and Social Security Insurance benefits eligibility.

Before the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Galarza’s attorney Stephanie Simpson’s (“Simpson”) request that the ALJ recuse himself based upon perceived bias towards counsel. Bias must be shown within the context of an individual case. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir.2001). As evidence of the ALJ’s bias, Simpson only cited to a previous unpublished memorandum disposition, Bronson v. Barnhart, 56 Fed.Appx. 793, 793-94 (9th Cir.2003) (unpublished), in which this court found that the ALJ had exhibited bias against Simpson. Since Simpson provided no evidence of bias within the context of this case, her request was appropriately denied. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 858.

At the hearing, the ALJ found that Galarza did not present credible evidence regarding his inability to work. In addition, the ALJ found that Galarza does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that makes him eligible for benefits and had not suffered a “disability” as defined by the Social Security Act at any time through the date of the ALJ’s decision.

Subjective complaints of pain are subject to an ALJ’s credibility assessment. See Rollins, 261 F.3d at 856-57. In making an adverse credibility finding, the ALJ properly considered the factual inconsistencies between Galarza’s testimony and the medical report, and the inconsistencies within Galarza’s testimony itself. See Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 604 n. 5 (9th Cir.1989).

The ALJ’s statements regarding the conflicting medical opinions, Galarza’s sporadic treatment history, and inconsistencies in Galarza’s testimony regarding his pain provide a specific and legitimate basis to determine that Galarza does not have a severe impairment under step two of the five step sequential process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(h), 416.920(a)(4)(h) (2010). The ALJ correctly applied the law and his decision was supported by substantial evidence. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.