William R. Campbell v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM R. CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-35992
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00252-CI
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Cynthia Imbrogno, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 4, 2012**
Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
William Campbell appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner
of Social Security’s denial of Campbell’s application for disability insurance benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and affirm.
FILED
DEC 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
This court reviews de novo the district court’s order upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d
1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012). The disability determination will be affirmed unless it was
not supported by substantial evidence or is based on a legal error. Berry v. Astrue, 622
F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010).
The ALJ denied Campbell’s claim at Step 2 of the five-step sequential evaluation
to determine disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ concluded that Campbell failed
to prove that he had a disabling severe impairment before June 13, 1977, the last date
Campbell was insured.
An ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion that is “conclusory and brief
and unsupported by clinical findings.” Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th
Cir. 2001). The medical report of Dr. Rob Neils stated that Campbell could not sustain
gainful activity since his stint in the Navy due to post traumatic stress disorder. This
conclusion, however, was based on Campbell’s employment history, not on clinical
findings or medical records of any kind. Substantial evidence supported the decision to
reject Dr. Neils’s diagnosis.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --