Carolyn McCoy v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 09-56250 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CAROLYN MCCOY, No. 09-56250 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-04217-SS v. MEMORANDUM * MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Suzanne H. Segal, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted December 7, 2010 ** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Appellant Carolyn McCoy ( McCoy ) challenges the district court s decision upholding the Appellee Commissioner of Social Security s determination that McCoy was not disabled. * 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). The ALJ chose to adopt the non-treating physician s conclusions because they accurately reflected the medical evidence. The ALJ found that, based on the objective medical evidence, the majority of medical conditions which formed the basis for the treating physician s functional assessment did not impair McCoy because the conditions were being successfully treated or had been resolved. Thus, the treating physician s conclusions were not supported by the medical records. 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 treating physician s conclusions. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, the ALJ summarized all of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence from multiple sources in a detailed and thorough fashion, stating his interpretation and making findings. See Id. Therefore, the ALJ s decision was supported by substantial evidence and correctly applied the applicable law. See Valentine v. Commissioner, 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
