Paul Rimland v. Michael Astrue
Paul H. RIMLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Janis L. Sammartino (district judge)
- Outcome
- remanded — REMANDED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Alex Kozinski (author), Gould, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL H. RIMLAND, No. 08-56148 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02490-JLS-LSP v. MEMORANDUM * MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 31, 2010 ** Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The ALJ appropriately gave more weight to the medical expert’s testimony than to observations made by Rimland’s father. See, e.g., Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d * 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). page 2 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001) (“One reason for which an ALJ may discount lay testimony is that it conflicts with medical evidence.”). But the expert’s testimony established that Rimland’s functional capacity is extremely limited during periods of sickness that occur about four times per year. Even though at least one medical report supports Rimland’s claim that the attacks can last for several weeks, the vocational expert didn’t testify as to whether they affect Rimland’s ability to perform his past relevant work. The ALJ must address that narrow issue on remand. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).
The evidence adequately supported a finding that Rimland’s medical conditions are otherwise under control and, apart from the periodic attacks, would leave him with sufficient functional capacity to perform his past relevant work. Id.
§ 404.1520(f).
REMANDED.