Richard P. Hanrahan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICHARD P. HANRAHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-56449
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03148-JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John E. McDermott, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Richard P. Hanrahan (“Hanrahan”) challenges the district court’s
judgment affirming Appellee Commissioner of Social Security’s determination
FILED
MAR 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
that Hanrahan was not disabled. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Hanrahan retained
the residual functional capacity to perform light work existing in the national
economy and was therefore not disabled. The ALJ chose to adopt the treating
physician’s and non-examining physician’s conclusions because they accurately
reflected the medical evidence. The ALJ gave little weight to the examining
physician’s conclusions because he found them unsupported by the diagnostic tests
and the treating and non-examining physicians’ assessments.
The ALJ’s statements regarding the medical evidence as it related to the
conflicting medical opinions provided a specific and legitimate explanation for
rejecting the examining physician’s opinions. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821,
830-31 (9th Cir. 1995); Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 1995).
Therefore, the ALJ’s denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence in the
record.
The ALJ also properly discounted Hanrahan’s credibility. The ALJ may
reject the claimant’s pain testimony by offering “specific findings stating clear and
convincing reasons for doing so.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir.
1996). The ALJ specifically found that Hanrahan’s lack of treatment, failure to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
seek aggressive treatment, and daily activities as reported by Hanrahan’s son, were
all inconsistent with Hanrahan’s subjective complaints. These are specific findings
stating clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Hanrahan’s pain testimony.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --