Janet Grimes v. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JANET GRIMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-35707
D.C. No. 6:10-cv-00662-HO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Portland, Oregon
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The district court affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of
Janet Grimes’s application for Social Security disability insurance benefits.
FILED
OCT 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Grimes appeals. We review a district court’s decision in a social security case de
novo. Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008).
The decision of the ALJ must be upheld if it is free of legal error and supported by
substantial evidence in the record. Id. We affirm.
We have reviewed the record, and we agree with the reasoning and
conclusion set forth in the district court’s June 20, 2011 order. The ALJ offered
specific, clear, and convincing reasons regarding the conflicting objective and
subjective evidence to support his adverse credibility finding against Plaintiff. The
ALJ also properly discounted the testimony of Plaintiff’s husband based upon
similar contradictions with the objective evidence in the record. The ALJ did not
err in rejecting the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Jennifer D.
Simpson. “A physician’s opinion of disability ‘premised to a large extent upon the
claimant’s own accounts of [her] symptoms and limitations’ may be disregarded
where those complaints have been ‘properly discounted.’” Morgan v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Fair v. Bowen, 885
F.2d 597, 605 (9th Cir. 1989)). Dr. Simpson noted on each page of her report that
the limitations contained therein were merely subjective descriptions reported by
Plaintiff, so the ALJ effectively rejected Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, not the
medical opinion of Plaintiff’s physician. Finally, the ALJ provided specific and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
legitimate reasons for his decision that Plaintiff was able to perform sedentary
work, which are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --