Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brinegar v. Astrue
Citation: 337 F. App'x 711Docket: No. 08-35594
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 17, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
William S. Brinegar appeals the district court's affirmation of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his disability insurance benefits. The court upheld the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)’s decision, stating that the ALJ did not err in rejecting the opinion of Brinegar’s treating physician. The ALJ is permitted to reject a treating physician's opinion, even when contradicted by other medical opinions, if specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence are provided. The ALJ successfully articulated such reasons, determining that the treating physician's opinion was not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic tests, as outlined in Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-2p. Additionally, the court clarified that the ALJ was not obligated to re-contact the treating physician, as this duty only arises when the evidence from the physician is inadequate to determine disability. In this case, the evidence was deemed sufficient for the ALJ to evaluate Brinegar's claim properly. Furthermore, the ALJ was not required to employ a medical expert to establish a disability onset date under SSR 83-20, given that the ALJ concluded Brinegar had never been disabled. The court affirmed the decision, noting that this ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.