Kent v. Barnhart

Full title: Andrea L. KENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, [*…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 16, 2002

32 F. App'x 954 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

32 Fed.Appx. 954 (9th Cir. 2002) Andrea L. KENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, ^* Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee. No. 01-15411. D.C. No. CV-99-06649-SMS. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 16, 2002

Submitted April 8, 2002. ^**

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. ^***

*** The parties consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^****

**** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Andrea Kent appeals the district court's summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's summary judgment upholding the Commissioner's denial of benefits, reviewing for substantial evidence and legal error the Commissioner's decision. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") denial of benefits because Kent failed to meet her burden to establish that her obesity, hypertension, right-eye blindness, abdominal hernia, and lower back pain, constituted a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit her ability to do basic work activities. See Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the ALJ properly determined that Kent was not disabled. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.1999).

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's rejection of Kent's subjective pain testimony because the ALJ made specific findings to support his determination that Kent's complaints were exaggerated and that Kent failed to obtain treatment for her alleged pain. See Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

We reject Kent's contention that the ALJ erred by not utilizing Social Security Ruling 00-3p.

AFFIRMED.