Unpublished Disposition, 848 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Eliakis appeals from the district court's decision upholding the determination of the Secretary that she was not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The Secretary's decision must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. Fanning v. Bowen, 827 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 1987).

The ALJ found that Eliakis had obesity, degenerative arthritis, low back pain, gastroesophageal reflux and allergies and was unable to perform her past work as a practical nurse, but that she had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. He then applied Rule 201.19 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines (grids) which directed a finding of not disabled. 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 (1987). In reaching his conclusion that Eliakis could perform sedentary work, the ALJ considered a large number of often conflicting medical reports, disregarding some either because they were not prepared by physicians or because they lacked specificity. He discounted Eliakis's testimony of severe pain over all parts of her body as exaggerated, incredible and unsupported by objective medical evidence, and he found that her allergies did not significantly reduce the number of jobs otherwise available to her.

Eliakis's primary contention is that the ALJ erred by disregarding her subjective complaints of pain and allergic reactions. She asserts that the combination of objective medical evidence and subjective complaints warranted a finding of residual functional capacity short of that required for sedentary work. First, we cannot overturn the Secretary's decision merely because the evidence would support this finding. The claimant bears the burden of proving that an impairment is disabling. Miller v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 1985) We must uphold the Secretary's findings if supported by substantial evidence, which " 'means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' " Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1986). If a reasonable mind might have concluded that Eliakis failed to carry the burden of proving that her impairments precluded her from engaging in sedentary work, we must affirm.

Furthermore, we do not think the ALJ erred in disregarding parts of Eliakis's testimony which he believed were exaggerated. Eliakis directs our attention to Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 1986), where we said that the ALJ must make specific findings justifying his disbelief of a claimant's testimony that she experiences pain in excess of that which a medically documented impairment would normally be expected to produce and that it is improper for the ALJ to discredit the testimony "solely on the ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical findings." See also Varney v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, No. 87-6075, slip op. at 5452 (9th Cir. May 16, 1988) (reiterating this requirement). Eliakis asserts that the ALJ did not make specific findings, but we disagree. In explaining his finding that Eliakis had exaggerated her complaints, the ALJ discussed the report of an orthopedic surgeon which he considered more persuasive than the other medical reports. He specifically noted the physician's observation of normal responses which were inconsistent with Eliakis's testimony and tended to show a greater ability to function physically than she alleged. The ALJ's disbelief of Eliakis's testimony did not rest solely on the lack of fully corroborative medical findings, but also on contradictory medical evidence. This is sufficient. Eliakis failed to carry the burden of proving that she could not perform sedentary work.

Alternatively, Eliakis argues that her alleged pain and allergies were non-exertional impairments not reflected in the grids and that the ALJ was therefore required to obtain expert vocational testimony on the number of sedentary jobs available to someone with her impairments. She relies primarily on Bellamy v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 755 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 1985), and Allen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 726 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1984). In Bellamy the ALJ failed to convincingly justify his rejection of "uncontroverted testimony and significant probative evidence" of non-exertional impairments. Because he acknowledged that substantiation of the claimant's non-exertional ailments could "change the overall picture," it was error to rely solely on the grids. 755 F.2d at 1382-83. In Allen application of the grids was precluded because the ALJ found that the claimant could work only in an environment free of respiratory irritants, and this restriction was not reflected in the grids. 726 F.2d at 1472.

Here, there was evidence that Eliakis suffered from medical conditions with non-exertional consequences (allergies and lower back pain), but she has not directed us to any credible evidence that the non-exertional aspects of these conditions imposed particular environmental restrictions or otherwise decreased her residual functional capacity below that required for sedentary work.¹  Allegations of non-exertional limitations do not preclude application of the grids if the ALJ determines that these limitations do not significantly limit the range of work permitted by exertional limitations. Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, No. 87-5765, slip op. at 5489-90 (9th Cir. May 16, 1988); Cooper v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1987); Razey v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1426, 1430, amended 794 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1986). The ALJ made this determination when he stated, immediately after explaining why he found Eliakis's pain testimony exaggerated, that she could perform at least sedentary work, and when he stated that the number of jobs available to her was not significantly reduced by her allergies. We find that there was substantial evidence to support these conclusions. Consequently, it was not error to apply the grids.

AFFIRMED.