Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenged the district court's affirmation of the denial of her disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The appellate court, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, conducted a de novo review and held that the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assessed the appellant’s claim, rejecting the opinion of her treating physician due to insufficient objective support and internal contradictions within the clinical findings. Additionally, the ALJ found inconsistencies in the appellant’s testimony and daily activities, alongside her conservative treatment plan and objective medical evidence, which led to the discrediting of her claims of disabling pain. It was determined that the appellant retained the residual functional capacity for light work with limitations, allowing her to perform her past relevant work. The appellate court affirmed the decision, noting that the appellant's argument concerning the classification of her past employment as 'Cashier II' was not addressed, as it had not been raised at the district court level. The decision is affirmed, and not for publication or citation as per Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Assessment of Claimant's Credibilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ALJ discredited the claimant's testimony based on inconsistencies with her daily activities, conservative treatment, and objective medical evidence.
Reasoning: The ALJ also discredited Sainz’s claims of disabling pain due to inconsistencies in her testimony, her daily activities, her physician's conservative treatment approach, and the objective medical evidence.
Evaluation of Treating Physician's Opinionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ALJ rejected the opinion of the treating physician due to a lack of objective support and contradictions within the physician's findings.
Reasoning: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) appropriately rejected the opinion of Dr. Papillion, Sainz’s treating physician, as it lacked objective support and contradicted the physician's own clinical findings.
Jurisdiction for Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the case under 28 U.S.C. 1291, conducting a de novo review of the district court's affirmation.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and conducts a de novo review, upholding the Commissioner’s decision if supported by substantial evidence and free of legal errors.
Procedural Waiver of Argumentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court did not consider the claimant's argument about job classification due to its absence in district court proceedings.
Reasoning: The appellate court declined to address Sainz’s argument regarding the classification of her past work as 'Cashier II' since she did not raise this issue in the district court.
Residual Functional Capacity Determinationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ALJ found that the claimant retained the capacity to perform light work with limitations, allowing her to return to her past relevant work.
Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that Sainz retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work with certain limitations, enabling her to undertake her past relevant work.