Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant, Garry L. Mercer, challenges the district court's affirmation of the Social Security Administration's denial of his disability insurance benefits. The appeal is reviewed de novo under 28 U.S.C. 1291, focusing on whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly evaluated medical opinions in the record. Mercer argues that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinions of his treating physician, Dr. David Mitchell, and non-examining orthopedic specialist, Dr. Thomas L. Gritzka. The court finds that the ALJ gave substantial weight to Dr. Mitchell's clinical findings from 1997 to 2000 and provided specific and legitimate reasons for discounting a July 2004 letter asserting total disability, such as its unsigned nature and inconsistency with prior medical records. Similarly, the ALJ properly assigned less weight to Dr. Gritzka's 2006 opinion, as it was not based on a recent evaluation. The court concludes that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards, affirming the denial of disability benefits. The ruling is not designated for publication and lacks precedential effect under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Evaluation of Treating Physician's Opinionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ALJ is required to provide substantial evidence when rejecting the opinions of a treating physician, ensuring that specific and legitimate reasons are articulated.
Reasoning: The court finds that the ALJ did not give 'no weight' to Dr. Mitchell’s opinion; instead, the ALJ credited Dr. Mitchell's clinical findings from 1997 to 2000 but discounted a July 2004 letter claiming total disability, citing specific reasons.
Standard of Review under 28 U.S.C. 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviews the denial of disability benefits de novo, meaning it considers the matter anew, as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision previously had been rendered.
Reasoning: The appeal is reviewed de novo under 28 U.S.C. 1291.
Substantial Evidence Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ALJ's decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, meaning more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.
Reasoning: The court affirms that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decisions and the application of correct legal standards.
Weight of Non-Examining Physician's Opinionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ALJ may assign less weight to the opinion of a non-examining physician when it is not based on a recent evaluation, and when there is substantial evidence supporting the findings of examining physicians.
Reasoning: Regarding Dr. Gritzka, the court agrees with the ALJ’s characterization of him as a non-examining physician, noting that Dr. Gritzka’s March 2006 opinion did not stem from a recent evaluation of Mercer.