MARY SALMON V. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, No. 12-16251 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARY ANNE SALMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-16251 D.C. No. 5:10-cv-03636-LHK v. MEMORANDUM* CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy Koh, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2014** San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and O SCANNLAIN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Mary Anne Salmon appeals the district court s order affirming the decision of Carolyn Colvin, 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). Salmon argues that our remand directive in Salmon v. Astrue, 309 F. App x. 113, 116 (9th Cir. 2009), required the administrative law judge (ALJ) to reevaluate her alleged physical impairment. But as the ALJ and the district court concluded, the scope of the remand was limited to consideration of Salmon s alleged mental impairment: We reverse and remand for reconsideration of the determination of Salmon s mental capacity with instructions to accept Salmon s pain testimony as true. Id. (emphasis added). True, we instructed the ALJ to accept Salmon s pain testimony, but we emphasized that Salmon s pain testimony may have a bearing on her depression and overall mental problems and should be considered in that light by the ALJ. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the ALJ did not err by refusing to reexamine Salmon s claim of physical disability. With regard to Salmon s alleged mental impairment, she contends that the ALJ s decision denying her claim was not supported by substantial evidence and that she was entitled to benefits as a matter of law. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). As documented by the district court, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. David Silverman, relying instead on the mutually supportive opinions of Drs. Laurie Weiss and Danilo Lucila. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 31 (9th Cir. 1995). Such analysis satisfies our highly deferential standard of review. 2 Valentine v. Comm r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009). The ALJ s decision is supported by substantial evidence and [is] a correct application of the law. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). AFFIRMED. 3
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.
