Roberta Macdonald Acord v. Carolyn W. Colvin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTA MACDONALD ACORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-35933
D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00026-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2014 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Roberta MacDonald Acord (Acord) appeals the district court’s order that
granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (Commissioner) and upheld the decision of the administrative law
FILED
APR 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

judge (ALJ) to deny Acord’s application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. Substantial evidence supported the decision of the ALJ to accord the
treating physician’s opinion little weight. The ALJ discounted Dr. Cohan’s opinion
that Acord was disabled because determination of a claimant’s ultimate disability is
a decision reserved for the Commissioner. See McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 884-
85 (9th Cir. 2011), as amended. Moreover, Dr. Cohan reached his conclusion after
one visit with Acord. See Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 n.2 (9th Cir.
2001) (noting that the ALJ may discount the opinion of a treating physician who has
not seen the patient long enough to develop a “longitudinal picture”). Finally, Dr.
Cohan’s opinions were not supported by his treatment notes, which indicated that the
results of Acord’s physical examination were normal, and showed improvements
while Acord worked.
2. Substantial evidence also supported the ALJ’s determination that Acord’s
subjective complaints were not credible. At a minimum, Acord’s ability to work,
function independently, and take care of her personal needs were inconsistent with her
subjective complaints. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)
(noting that pain testimony may be undermined by testimony regarding daily
activities).
Page 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3. The hypothetical the ALJ posed to the vocational expert included all of
Acord’s documented limitations. The ALJ was not required to include “other
limitations that [Acord] had claimed, but had failed to prove.” Rollins, 261 F.3d at
857.
AFFIRMED.
Page 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --