Samuel Espinoza v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL ESPINOZA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-56677
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00357
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Charles F. Eick, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2015**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Espinoza appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Espinoza’s applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
FILED
AUG 06 2015
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 --

Social Security Act. Espinoza alleged disability due to diabetes mellitus, high
cholesterol, and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. Espinoza contends
that the administrative law judge ignored medical evidence that his condition was
worsening. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court’s order de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d
1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not
supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Espinoza’s disability
application. First, the ALJ provided several valid reasons for giving minimal
weight to the assessments from Dr. Tepper, Espinoza’s worker’s compensation
treating physician. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195
(9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the ALJ properly discounted treating doctor’s
opinions that were contradicted by other assessments of the claimant’s medical
condition). Second, the ALJ properly gave considerable weight to the medical
opinion of testifying medical expert Dr. Axline. Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 613 F.3d 1217, 1222-23 (9th Cir. 2010). Third, the ALJ considered a post-
operation examination and assessment of Espinoza by Dr. Silbart, and it was within
the ALJ’s discretion to conclude that Espinoza’s post-operation condition was not
disabling within the Social Security disability context. Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d
13-56677 2

-- 2 of 3 --

540, 544 (9th Cir. 1996). Finally, contrary to Espinoza’s allegation, the agency did
consider post-surgery medical evidence when the ALJ admitted Dr. Silbart’s report
into evidence after the hearing, and the Appeals Council considered additional
evidence. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Espinoza was not disabled. Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157,
1163 (9th Cir. 2012).
Espinoza’s motion to remand to consider additional medical evidence is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
13-56677 3

-- 3 of 3 --