Opinion
No. 10-35718.
Submitted June 6, 2011 Seattle, Washington.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
July 6, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05329-RBL.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellant Sven E. Sampson (Sampson) challenges the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Sampson's application for disability insurance benefits.
1. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the Veterans Administration's (VA's) disability rating and gave specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence for giving less weight to the VA's disability rating. See Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1236 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that an ALJ may disagree with the VA's disability determination when giving "persuasive, specific, [and] valid reasons" supported by the record).
2. The ALJ properly weighed the medical evidence and sufficiently explained her rejection of the treating physicians' opinions. See Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-1395 (9th Cir. 1984) (explaining that all evidence need not be discussed in the ALJ's decision; the ALJ must simply "explain why significant probative evidence has been rejected") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
3. Because the ALJ properly rejected the treating physicians' opinions, any error in rejecting the Global Assessment of Function (GAF) scores was harmless, since the scores alone would not establish disability. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing harmless error).
4. Stating specific and legitimate reasons to support her conclusion that the claimant's testimony was not entirely credible, the ALJ sufficiently substantiated her adverse credibility determination. See Tomasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039.
5. The ALJ properly determined Sampson's residual functional capacity (RFC) from the medical expert's testimony as corroborated by evidence from the medical records. Because the ALJ's hypothetical to the Vocational Expert (VE) encompassed the RFC and the VE identified available jobs in the national and local economy, the ALJ's finding of no disability was supported by substantial evidence. See Stout v. Comm'r, 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that if the RFC allows the claimant to adjust to work existing in the economy he is not disabled).
AFFIRMED.