Unpublished Disposition, 936 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Mesrop Tankabakyan ("claimant") appeals the district court's decision affirming the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and disability benefits.

Claimant did not meet his burden of proving that he is disabled. Although claimant provided several medical reports that concluded he was disabled, a closer examination reveals that many of these reports were not clinically supported. Clinically unsupported medical reports do little to substantiate a claimant's claim. See Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir. 1986).

The record shows that the claimant did not seek treatment until seven years after the onset of his disability. His subjective pain testimony was plagued with inconsistencies. Claimant also stated that he worked in Armenia while feeling the same as he does now. In light of these facts, the ALJ made a credibility decision. It is the ALJ's role to decide credibility issues and to resolve conflicts in the testimony. Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982).

Finally, Dr. Gevorkian should not be afforded the special status of a "treating physician." The doctor only saw the claimant once before claimant filed his application, and rendered a diagnosis after only one visit. Thus, Dr. Gevorkian cannot be deemed to have had a better opportunity than the other physicians to observe and to know the claimant when he rendered his opinion. Even assuming that Dr. Gevorkian should be recognized as a treating physician, however, the ALJ did indicate specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the doctor's opinion. See Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983).

The ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not based upon legal error. The ALJ was acting within his power when he made the credibility decisions that he did. See Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1456 (9th Cir. 1984). Furthermore, the ALJ is entitled to draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence to reach his conclusions. If such conclusions are a rational interpretation of the evidence, this court must uphold the ALJ's findings. Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982); Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1984).

AFFIRMED.