Rowe v. Astrue

Ninth Circuit

Rowe v. Astrue

384 F. App'x 583

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 2010

Docket07-35817

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 384 F. App'x 583 (Rowe v. Astrue) 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

Rowe v. Astrue, 384 F. App'x 583 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Cheryl Rowe appeals the district court’s order affirming a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Specifically, Rowe appeals the basis on which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded her disability benefits.

We grant the government’s motion to strike the additional exhibits submitted by Rowe with her first reply brief to this court. The exhibits are not part of the administrative record upon which this court must base its review. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2000). See also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

We review the district court’s decision de novo. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). We must affirm the ALJ’s decision, if it is supported by substantial evidence and if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. Id. Even if the evidence could support more than one rational interpretation, we defer to the ALJ’s decision as long as it is among the rational interpretations. Id.

The evidence in the record here supports more than one rational interpretation. The ALJ’s determination that Rowe’s disability results from the combined effects of physical and mental disorders is among those rational interpretations. In reaching his determination, the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.

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 *

Cheryl Rowe appeals the district court’s order affirming a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Specifically, Rowe appeals the basis on which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded her disability benefits.

We grant the government’s motion to strike the additional exhibits submitted by Rowe with her first reply brief to this court. The exhibits are not part of the administrative record upon which this court must base its review. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2000). See also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

We review the district court’s decision de novo. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). We must affirm the ALJ’s decision, if it is supported by substantial evidence and if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. Id. Even if the evidence could support more than one rational interpretation, we defer to the ALJ’s decision as long as it is among the rational interpretations. Id.

The evidence in the record here supports more than one rational interpretation. The ALJ’s determination that Rowe’s disability results from the combined effects of physical and mental disorders is among those rational interpretations. In reaching his determination, the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.

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)

384 F. App'x 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-astrue-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack