Roberta Acord v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Ninth Circuit

Roberta Acord v. Carolyn W. Colvin

571 F. App'x 522

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 2014

Docket12-35933

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 571 F. App'x 522 (Roberta Acord v. Carolyn W. Colvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberta Acord v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 571 F. App'x 522 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Roberta MacDonald Acord (Acord) appeals the district court’s order that granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) and upheld the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) to deny Acord’s application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Substantial evidence supported the decision of the ALJ to accord the treating physician’s opinion little weight. The ALJ discounted Dr. Cohan’s opinion that Acord was disabled because determination of a claimant’s ultimate disability is a decision reserved for the Commissioner. See McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 884-85 (9th Cir.2011), as amended. Moreover, Dr. Cohan reached his conclusion after one visit with Acord. See Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the ALJ may discount the opinion of a treating physician who has not seen the patient long enough to develop a “longitudinal picture”). Finally, Dr. Cohan’s opinions were not supported by his treatment notes, which indicated that the results of Acord’s physical examination were normal, and showed improvements while Acord worked.

2. Substantial evidence also supported the ALJ’s determination that Acord’s subjective complaints were not credible. At a minimum, Acord’s ability to work, function *523 independently, and take care of her personal needs were inconsistent with her subjective complaints. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that pain testimony may be undermined by testimony regarding daily activities).

3. The hypothetical the ALJ posed to the vocational expert included all of Acord’s documented limitations. The ALJ was not required to include “other limitations that [Acord] had claimed, but had failed to prove.” Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Roberta MacDonald Acord (Acord) appeals the district court’s order that granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) and upheld the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) to deny Acord’s application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Substantial evidence supported the decision of the ALJ to accord the treating physician’s opinion little weight. The ALJ discounted Dr. Cohan’s opinion that Acord was disabled because determination of a claimant’s ultimate disability is a decision reserved for the Commissioner. See McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 884-85 (9th Cir.2011), as amended. Moreover, Dr. Cohan reached his conclusion after one visit with Acord. See Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the ALJ may discount the opinion of a treating physician who has not seen the patient long enough to develop a “longitudinal picture”). Finally, Dr. Cohan’s opinions were not supported by his treatment notes, which indicated that the results of Acord’s physical examination were normal, and showed improvements while Acord worked.

2. Substantial evidence also supported the ALJ’s determination that Acord’s subjective complaints were not credible. At a minimum, Acord’s ability to work, function *523 independently, and take care of her personal needs were inconsistent with her subjective complaints. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that pain testimony may be undermined by testimony regarding daily activities).

3. The hypothetical the ALJ posed to the vocational expert included all of Acord’s documented limitations. The ALJ was not required to include “other limitations that [Acord] had claimed, but had failed to prove.” Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 F. App'x 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberta-acord-v-carolyn-w-colvin-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack