Martin Lee Brooks v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN LEE BROOKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-15046
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-02124-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 13, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Brooks appeals the denial of his social security disability benefits. We
affirm.
FILED
DEC 15 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

1. Brooks contends that the ALJ erred by not specifically mentioning the
check-box notations from one of his treating physicians. The ALJ “may
‘permissibly reject[] . . . check-off reports that [do] not contain any explanation of
the bases of their conclusions.’” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.
2012) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). But even if we assume that the
ALJ erred, any error was harmless. See Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th
Cir. 2015); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111, 1115.
2. Brooks contends that the ALJ erred by not providing adequate reasons for
giving diminished weight to his treating physician’s opinions. The ALJ gave
several good reasons for her determination that this physician’s opinions should be
afforded less weight. Thus, the ALJ did not err. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2)
(explaining that an ALJ may consider the length and extent of treatment in
weighing a treating physician’s medical opinion).
3. Brooks contends that the ALJ erred by not adopting his work limitations as
set forth by two physicians. However, the ALJ has substantial discretion in
making this determination and in resolving conflicts among medical opinions. See
Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 1995). Because there is
substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination, the ALJ did not err. See
Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --