FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARY ANNE SALMON, No. 12-16251
Plaintiff - Appellant, 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