NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MALIA A. BAKER, No. 13-35837
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00132-CI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Cynthia Imbrogno, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 18, 2014**
Before: D. Nelson, Leavy, and Thomas, Circuit Judges.
Malia Baker appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Baker’s application for Supplemental
Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Baker contends that
*
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 administrative law judge (“ALJ”) improperly relied on the opinion of testifying
medical expert Dr. Veraldi over the opinions of examining sources Dr. Arnold and
Dr. Cavanee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court’s order de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d
1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not
supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id.
The ALJ found that Baker was under a disability, but that a substance abuse
disorder was a contributing factor material to the determination of disability. At
step five of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that if Baker stopped her
substance abuse, she could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national economy.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s analysis of the medical opinion
evidence. Contrary to Baker’s contention, the ALJ did not reject the opinion of
examining source Dr. Arnold, but instead accorded it “great weight” to his opinion.
The ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he considered the entirety of Dr. Arnold’s
report, and reasonably relied primarily on the narrative portion of the report, which
explained in more detail Baker’s capabilities. In addition, the ALJ properly
accorded “little weight” to Dr. Cavanee’s evaluation because he evaluated Baker
while Baker was still suffering from opiod dependence. Finally, the ALJ also
2
reasonably relied on the opinion of non-examining medical consultant Dr. Veraldi,
who agreed with Dr. Arnold’s conclusion and disagreed with Dr. Cavenee. See
Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (the contrary opinions
of an examining physician and non-examining medical expert serve as legitimate
reasons for rejecting the opinion of examining physician).
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Baker was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
AFFIRMED.
3