Stacey Brown v. Michael Astrue , 356 F. App'x 997 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           DEC 15 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    STACEY M. BROWN,                                 No. 08-17357
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00638-CMK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
    Social Security,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 11, 2009**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    Appellant Stacey Brown appeals the district court’s entry of summary
    judgment in favor of the Commissioner.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding because
    he properly relied upon medical records of Brown’s examining physician, Dr.
    Chee, that contradicted Brown’s testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms.
    See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    533 F.3d 1155
    , 1161 (9th Cir. 2008)
    (concluding that the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination was proper when it
    relied on the examining physician’s contradictory opinion). Because this is a valid
    basis supporting the ALJ’s decision, any error the ALJ made in improperly
    considering other evidence was harmless. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
    
    554 F.3d 1219
    , 1227 (9th Cir. 2009).
    The ALJ’s assessment of Brown’s RFC was proper because once an adverse
    credibility determination is made, an ALJ is not required to credit that testimony in
    assessing a claimant’s RFC. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 
    427 F.3d 1211
    , 1215, 1217
    (9th Cir. 2005).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-17357

Citation Numbers: 356 F. App'x 997

Filed Date: 12/15/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023