FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLA A. LONGERBEAM, No. 10-56250
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-CV-00864-DMS-PCL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carla Longerbeam appeals the denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review de novo a district court’s decision to affirm an Administrative
Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of social security benefits. Edlund v. Massanari, 253
F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001).
The ALJ considered the testimony of Dr. Schorn, a non-examining
physician, sufficiently. The ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Schorn’s opinion
regarding Longerbeam’s inability to sustain work, particularly because it was
speculative and conflicted with the opinions of several other physicians who
treated and examined Longerbeam. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Thomas v. Barnhart,
278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195,
1202 (9th Cir. 2001); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996). No
further explanation of the weight given to Dr. Schorn’s testimony was required.
In addition, ample medical evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Longerbeam’s limitations do not rise to the level of a disability under the Social
Security Act.
AFFIRMED.
2