Castaneda v. Astrue
Docket: No. 07-16589
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 2, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for determining Castaneda's credibility as adverse, supported by substantial evidence. Castaneda claimed difficulties with standing and walking, using a cane and back brace; however, he did not have these devices during the hearing, and no doctor prescribed a cane. The ALJ was not obligated to call a medical expert to assess whether Castaneda’s impairment met Listing 1.04(A) or (C) requirements. Under SSR 96-6p, the ALJ can fulfill the need for expert opinion by obtaining a state medical consultant's signature on the SSA-831-U5 form. The ALJ found Castaneda’s impairment did not equate to any listing, as he lacked the inability to ambulate effectively and did not have a positive straight-leg raising test. These conclusions were backed by substantial evidence. The ALJ properly relied on the assessments of Dr. Cunningham and non-examining physicians, Drs. Hughes and Vivian. Even if Dr. Cunningham did not review Castaneda’s October 2003 MRI, his independent examination and consistent findings with the overall record justified the ALJ's reliance on his report. Dr. Hughes's Case Development Sheet included an extensive review of Castaneda’s medical history and considered the October 2003 MRI. Dr. Hughes's determination that Castaneda did not meet Step Two disability criteria was based on normal exam findings and supported the conclusion that Castaneda retained a residual functional capacity (RFC) for medium work. The ALJ was not required to further develop the record, as it was not ambiguous or inadequate, containing opinions from both examining and non-examining physicians. The ALJ acknowledged Nurse Ridge's involvement in Castaneda's treatment but assigned her report little weight due to the nurse practitioner’s classification as a non-acceptable medical source and the brevity of her RFC determination. The ALJ appropriately prioritized the reports from Drs. Cunningham, Vivian, and Hughes over Nurse Ridge's inconsistent report. The decision was affirmed, noting that it is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.