to Dr. Wentworth’s November 2010 opinion: (1) there was no record support for Dr. Wentworth’s restricted limitations on Maestas’s lifting, sitting and standing when in fact the limitations on lifting are inconsistent with Dr. Wentworth’s November 2011 assessment that Maestas could lift a maximum of 20 pounds and lift 10 pounds frequently; and (2) this opinion was inconsistent with Maestas’s physical therapy reports showing overall improvement, decreased pain and symptoms as well as treatment reports indicating minimal pain or tenderness. The ALJ gave the following specific and legitimate reasons for assigning Dr. Wentworth’s November 2011 opinion only some weight: Maestas’s activities and clinical findings did not support this opinion. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>). The Commissioner’s determination at Step Two
holding that the alj erred by failing to mention the contrary opinion of a treating physician holding that clear and convincing reasons are not required to reject contradicted conclusions of a treating physician holding that a treating physicians diagnosis could be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record holding that the alj must make findings setting forth specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in order to reject the contradicted opinion of a treating physician holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician