green
Positive treatment
56.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnathan F. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
See 18 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 19 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 20 Here, Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial 21 evidence, and thus, this matter should “be remanded to the Commissioner for further 22 administrative proceedings including a de novo hearing and new decision.” (Mot. at 15.) 23 The Commissioner asks the Court to affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jon Paul Mata v. Commissioner of Social Security
Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 26 2014) (“Where … an ALJ makes a legal error, but the record is uncertain and ambiguous, the proper 27 3 Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 4 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986). 1 | approach is to remand the case to the agency.”). 2 IV.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jacqulynn Patricia Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security
Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 28 4 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986). > Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985). 18
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(SS) Donnelly v. Commissioner of Social Security
The Court concludes that remand for further proceedings is warranted because 27 6 Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 7 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986). 1 additional administrative proceedings may remedy the deficiencies in the ALJ’s decision noted 2 | herein. 3 IV.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(SS) Pryor v. Commissioner of Social Security
Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980)); where the 3 | record has been fully developed (Hoffman yv.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kite v. Kijakazi
See 10 Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004); Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 11 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock 12 v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 13 Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to remand this matter for further administrative 14 proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hampton v. Commissioner of Social Security
See 6 Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004); Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 7 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock 8 v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 9 Here, Plaintiff contends that the “credit-as-true” doctrine warrants an order 10 reversing the Commissioner’s decision, directing the Commissioner to find Plaintiff 11 disabled and entitled to benefits retroactive to August 20, 2019, and rewarding Plaintiff 12 reasonable attorney’s fees.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Franquez v. Kijakazi
See 17 Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004); Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 18 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock 19 v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 20 Here, Plaintiff contends that the Court should reverse the SSA’s decision and find 21 Plaintiff disabled.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Herd o/b/o S A E H a minor child v. Kijakazi
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 10 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 11 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 12 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perez v. Kijakazi
See 20 Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004); Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 21 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock 22 v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Soto v. Kijakazi
See Hoffman v. Heckler, 17 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 18 1985); Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 19 In this case, Plaintiff requests this Court to reverse the ALJ’s decision and award 20 her benefits, or in the alternative, remand the matter to cure the legal error.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Debruzzi v. Kijakazi
See 13 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 14 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 15 Here, Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial 16 evidence and thus the Court should “remand this case for further administrative 17 proceedings.” (J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mayo v. Kijakazi
See 6 || Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 7 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 8 Here, Plaintiff contends that the Court should reverse and remand for payment, 9 in the alternative, reverse and remand for further administrative proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez o/b/o E A P R, a minor child v. Kijakazi
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 13 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 14 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 15 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sisk v. Kijakazi
See 13 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 14 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 15 In this case, Plaintiff requests “an order from the Court reversing the final decision 16 and awarding benefits.” (ECF No. 15 at 19.) In the alternative, Plaintiff argues “the 17 Court should remand for further proceedings.” (Id.) Defendant asks the Court to affirm 18 the Commissioner’s final decision, or if the Court finds the ALJ erred, “Defendant 19 respectfully requests that the Court remand for furthe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sampedro v. Kijakazi
See 21 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 22 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 23 Here, Plaintiff requests the Court “remand for benefits,” or alternatively “for 24 further proceedings to present additional questions to the Vocational Expert regarding 25 [Plaintiff’s] limitations.” (J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramirez v. Kijakazi
See Hoffman v. Heckler, 13 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 14 1985); Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 15 Here, Plaintiff contends that the Court should “reverse and remand for payment 16 of benefits” or in the alternative, remand for further proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. Saul
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate where 12 no useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock v. 13 Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980), where the record has been fully developed, 14 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986), or where remand would 15 unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby 16 v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985). 17 Here, the Court cannot conclude that further administrative proceedings would serve 18 no useful purpose.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(SS) Valdizon v. Commissioner of Social Security
Remand for the payment of benefits is 2 appropriate where no useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, see 3 Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980) (claimant deceased); where the record has 4 been fully developed, see Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); or where 5 remand would unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits, Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716 , 719 6 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[T]he uncontroverted evidence establishes total disability.”). 7 Here, the Court concludes that this is not an instance where no useful purpose would b…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dryer v. Saul
See Hoffman v. Heckler, 26 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 27 1985); Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 1 Here, Plaintiff contends that the Court “should award Plaintiff his benefits,” or, in 2 || the alternative, “remand|[] for further evaluation.” (ECF No. 11 at 15.) Defendant 3 || maintains that the appropriate remedy in the event of reversal would be a remand for 4 || further administrative proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eggert v. Berryhill
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate 17 where no useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock 18 v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980), where the record has been fully developed, 19 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986), or where remand would 20 unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits for which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby 21 v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 710 (9th Cir. 1985). 22 Here, the record has not been fully developed as to whether Plaintiff knew or should 23 have known her SSA benefits were supposed to…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allen v. Saul
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 7 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 8 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 9 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Valdelamar-Ortuno v. Saul
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate 21 where no useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock 22 v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980), where the record has been fully developed, 23 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986), or where remand would 24 unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits for which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby 25 v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 710 (9th Cir. 1985). 26 Here, the Court concludes that further administrative proceedings would serve a 27 meaningful purpose to address the errors identifi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pratt v. Saul
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 2 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 3 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 4 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vader v. Saul
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate where 19 no useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock v. 20 Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980), where the record has been fully developed, 21 22 23 12 Medical–Vocational Guideline Rule 201.14, set forth in 20 C.F.R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Killion v. Commissioner of Social Security
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 20 Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 21 1 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts 2 in evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Houck v. Saul
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 22 2 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 3 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 4 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Briggs v. Andrew M. Saul
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 3 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 4 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 5 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Logan v. Saul
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 22 12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 13 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 14 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alanis v. Saul
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 22 12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 13 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 14 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sandoval v. Commissioner of Social Security
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 12 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 13 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 14 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Juarez-Gonzales v. Commissioner of Social Security
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 17 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 18 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 19 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kautzman v. Commissioner of Social Security
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 3 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 4 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 5 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooper v. Berryhill
Remand for the payment of benefits is 22 appropriate where no useful purpose would be served by further administrative 23 proceedings, where the record has been fully developed, or where remand would 24 unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to which the disabled plaintiff is entitled. 25 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 26 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985); Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). 27 The Court has discretion to credit the opinion of a treating physician as true 2 abuse of that discretion); Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Irizarry v. Berryhill
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate where 21 no useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock v. 22 Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980); where the record has been fully developed, 23 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); or where remand would 24 unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby 25 v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985). 26 Here, plaintiff is not seeking a remand for the payment of benefits.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shaw v. Berryhill
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate where 13 no useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock v. 14 Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980); where the record has been fully developed, 15 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); or where remand would 16 unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby 17 v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985). 18 The Court is mindful of Ninth Circuit authority for the proposition that, where an 19 ALJ failed to properly consider either subjecti…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cienfuegos v. Kijakazi
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 19 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 20 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 21 evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chirhart v. Berryhill
Remand 3 pursuant to sentence six for the payment of benefits is appropriate where no 4 useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, 5 Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980); where the record has 6 been fully developed, Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 7 1986); or where remand would unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to 8 which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716 , 719 9 (9th Cir. 1985). 10 As noted above, the ALJ erred in discounting the opinion of Plaintiff’s 11 treating physician, relying on …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Herrera v. Berryhill
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate where 22 no useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock v. 23 Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980); where the record has been fully developed, 24 Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); or where remand would 25 unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby 26 v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985). 27 The Court is mindful of Ninth Circuit authority for the proposition that, where an 28 ALJ failed to properly consider either subjecti…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michaud v. Berryhill
Remand 7 pursuant to sentence six for the payment of benefits is appropriate where no 8 useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, 9 Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980); where the record has 10 been fully developed, Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 11 1986); or where remand would unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to 12 which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716 , 719 13 (9th Cir. 1985). 14 As noted above, the ALJ erred at Step Two by failing to consider all the 15 evidence of Plaintiff’s ph…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greene v. Berryhill
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate where no useful purpose would 22 || be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th 23 |) Cir. 1980); where the record has been fully developed, Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423 , 24 || 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); or where remand would unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to 25 || which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 26 || 1985). 27 Here, the Court has concluded that this is not an instance where no useful purpose 28 || would be served by further a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maye v. Berryhill
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate where no useful purpose would 6 be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th 7 Cir. 1980); where the record has been fully developed, Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423 , 8 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); or where remand would unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to 9 which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 10 1985). 11 Where, as here, a claimant contends that he is entitled to an award of benefits because 12 of an ALJ’s failure to properly consider hi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams-McGloster v. Berryhill
Remand for the payment of benefits is appropriate where 3 useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings, Kornock v. 4 || Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1980); where the record has been fully developed, 5 || Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); or where remand would 6 unnecessarily delay the receipt of benefits to which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby 7 || v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985). 8 Here, the Court has found that the record has not been fully developed with respect 9 ||to the functional limitations resulting from …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ragodo v. Berryhill
Remand for the payment of benefits is 4 appropriate where no useful purpose would be served by further 5 administrative proceedings, Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 6 1980); where the record has been fully developed, Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 7 F.2d 1423 , 1425 (9th Cir. 1986); or where remand would unnecessarily delay 8 the receipt of benefits to which the disabled plaintiff is entitled, Bilby 9 v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1985). 10 The Court is mindful of Ninth Circuit authority for the proposition that, 11 where an ALJ failed to properly consider either subjective…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Curiel v. Commissioner of Social Security
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20 , 5 22 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1980)). 6 It is the role of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to resolve conflicts in 7 evidence.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Colvin
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir.1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Springer v. Colvin
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir.1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pederson v. Colvin
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir.1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Morrison v. Colvin
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir.1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Giancola v. Colvin
Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir.1980)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barbara KORNOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Patricia HARRIS, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
v.
Patricia HARRIS, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
79-3005.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 17, 1980.
Stephen P. Wiman, Oxnard, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant., Eugene Kramer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Kennedy, Tang, Larson.
Cited by 103 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
Verlyn Kornock applied for Social Security disability benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied his claim. The decision of the ALJ was affirmed by the Appeals Council, and became the final decision of the Secretary of HEW. The United States District Court for the Central District of California upheld the denial of Kornock’s claim. We reverse.
Substituted as plaintiff after her husband Verlyn’s death, appellant Barbara Kornock seeks disability benefits because of his bronchial asthma, allergies, and hypertension. The Secretary’s findings of fact are conclusive on this court if supported by substantial evidence. Johnson v. Harris, 625 F.2d 311, 312 (9th Cir. 1980); Hall v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 602 F.2d 1372, 1374 (9th Cir. 1979). Substantial evidence is “ ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,’ ” Walker v. Mathews, 546 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1976), quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971), and “the reviewing court must ‘look at the record as a whole and not merely at the evidence lending support to a finding.’ ” Cox v. Califano, 587 F.2d 988, 989-90, quoting Walker, 546 F.2d at 818. Under the law of this circuit, the burden is upon the claimant to prove disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Giampaoli v. Califano, 628 F.2d 1190, at 1193 (9th Cir. 1980); Hall, 602 F.2d at 1375. After a claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability by showing inability to perform his or her previous employment, however, the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove that the claimant can engage in other types of substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy. Giampaoli, at 1192; Johnson, 625 F.2d at 312; Hall, 602 F.2d at 1375. In meeting this burden, the Secretary must take into consideration the requirements of[*527] specified jobs as well as the claimant’s age, education, and background. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); Johnson, 625 F.2d at 312; Hall, 602 F.2d at 1377.
In this case, the ALJ concluded that Kornock could no longer engage in his usual occupation as a heavy truck driver, and thus appellant met her burden of showing a prima facie case of disability. The Secretary maintains that Kornock could engage in those occupations to which the vocational expert testified, namely repairman, machinist, or light truck driver. Testimony of a vocational expert, however, must be reliable in light of the medical evidence in order to qualify as substantial evidence. Embry v. Secretary of HEW, 626 F.2d 93, 95 (9th Cir. 1980).
Here, most of the doctors concluded that Kornock could perform no work, or at best, limited work involving no physical strain and no environmental pollutants. One treating physician also reported that Kornock could not push or pull with his arms and had limited capacity to stand or sit for more than one to three hours. Moreover, Kornock testified that he had become allergic to the chemicals used in machine work, and that most mechanic jobs involved standing up. Neither the ALJ nor the vocational expert explicitly considered these medical limitations in relation to the demands of the suggested occupations. Further, light truck driving involves, inter alia, loading or unloading a truck weighing under three tons, inspecting the equipment, and performing emergency roadside repairs. Heavy truck driving includes performing the same tasks while driving a truck over three tons. Nothing in the record explains how the physical exertion and pollution associated with driving a big truck differs from that of driving a small one.
The ALJ also failed to consider the overwhelming medical evidence that Kornock’s work would be subject to frequent interruptions because of his disabling attacks. “The ability to work only a few hours a day or to work only on an intermittent basis is not the ability to engage in ‘substantial gainful activity.’” Cornett v. Califano, 590 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1978). In other words, “[sjlight work of an irregular spasmodic character, subject to frequent interruptions because of Plaintiff’s ailment is not substantial gainful activity.” Austin v. Celebrezze, 230 F.Supp. 256, 259 (S.D.Tex.1964); see also Johnson v. Harris, 612 F.2d 993, 998 (5th Cir. 1980).
We are satisfied that the record does not contain substantial evidence that the Secretary sustained the burden of proof as to the availability of other jobs Kornock could perform in the economy and must therefore reverse. Accordingly, we do not reach appellant’s second contention that the ALJ failed to elicit scrupulously all of the relevant facts as required when a claimant is without legal counsel.
A new administrative hearing would serve no useful purpose in this case. Because Kornock is deceased, the evidence would be limited to existing medical reports and the AU would be without benefit of Kornock’s further testimony.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND with directions to enter judgment in favor of appellant.