NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VITALIY DIKOV, No. 15-35036
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00127-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
John V. Acosta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 30, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit
Judges.
Vitaliy Dikov appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Dikov’s application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ghanim v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1154,
1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The ALJ gave the following specific and legitimate reasons for assigning
only “limited weight” to treating physician Dr. Long’s opinion regarding Dikov’s
functional limitations: (1) Dr. Long did not sufficiently explain his conclusions or
address the severity or frequency of pain; (2) evidence shows that Dikov is able to
perform activities that Dr. Long opined he could never perform; and (3) his
opinion was inconsistent with the findings of other physicians. Burrell v. Colvin,
775 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2014) (the ALJ may only reject the contradicted
opinion of a treating physician by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are
supported by substantial evidence.). For example, Dr. Mauer found that Dikov
could perform a “full squat and rise to completion without difficulty” and had “full
symmetric motor strength.”
AFFIRMED.
2 15-35036