James Sample v. Richard Schweiker , Secretary of Health and Human Services (1982)

Op. 11–12, but it ignores the inconsistencies between Johnnie’s and Ruth’s testimony on the matter. 3 Ruth testified that Johnnie lived with her at Seba Dalkai during their first year of marriage, which began in 1971, but that she often “didn’t see him until late . . . evening after [she] got off work” because he was “always going home . . . when [she] went to work.” In contrast, Johnnie testified that, although he spent time at Seba Dalkai “off and on,” the only place he re…

Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he [ALJ] is entitled to draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence.”). 2.

The ALJ also may “draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence.” 8 Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982). 9 • Mr. Eliyahu Andrew Stahl, L.Ac. 10 In an undated note, plaintiff’s acupuncturist stated that he treated plaintiff for 11 IBS/Gastro distress, fatigue, insomnia, premenstrual dysphoric DO, and depression, 41 12 times between 10/24/2013 and 8/4/2013, approximately once a week.

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

See Farlow v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 485 , 488 (9th Cir. 2022) (“ALJs are, at some level, capable of independently reviewing and forming conclusions about medical evidence to discharge their statutory duty to determine whether a claimant is disabled and cannot work”); Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (an ALJ is “is entitled to draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence” and “need not substitute the judgment of expert witnesses for his own”).

“The testimony of a vocational expert ‘is valuable only to the extent that it is supported by medical evidence.’” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 756 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 1982)).

“The testimony of a vocational expert ‘is valuable only to the extent that it is supported by medical evidence.’” Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 756 (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

“The testimony of a vocational expert ‘is valuable only to the extent that it is supported by medical evidence.’” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 756 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 1982)).

“The testimony of a vocational expert ‘is valuable only to the extent that it is supported by medical evidence.’” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 756 (9th Cir 1989) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 1982)).

“The testimony of a vocational expert ‘is valuable only to the extent that it is supported by medical evidence.’” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 756 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 1982)).

“The testimony of a vocational expert ‘is valuable only to the extent that it is supported by medical evidence.’” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 756 (9th Cir 1989) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

(Doc. 13 at 5). 12 “Generally, ‘questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts in the testimony are 13 functions solely’ for the agency.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2007) 14 (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Si/vers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

“The testimony of a vocational expert ‘is valuable only to the extent that it is supported by medical evidence.’” Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 756 (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

See Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (“[T]he [ALJ] is entitled to draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence.”).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998). 5 Where the evidence is inconclusive, “questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts 6 are functions solely of the [ALJ].” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 7 1982).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th 12 Cir. 2008) (citing Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir.1982)).

Corp., 332 F.3d 1208, 1220 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 22 The IHO’s decision must be upheld “[w]here evidence is susceptible of more than one 23 rational interpretation[.]” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing 24 Rhinehart v. Finch, 438 F.2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1971)). 25 In a court’s review of an agency action, “the focal point for judicial review should 26 be the administrative record already in existence.” Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 …

The ALJ also may “draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence.” 10 Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982). 11 On March 26, 2013 plaintiff’s husband completed a function report – adult – third 12 party form.

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (WDNY 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

See Farlow v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 485 , 488 (9th Cir. 2022) (“ALJs are, at some level, capable of independently reviewing and forming conclusions about medical evidence to discharge their statutory duty to determine whether a claimant is disabled and cannot work”); Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (an ALJ is “is entitled to draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence” and “need not substitute the judgment of expert witnesses for his own”); and Pa…

Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998). 19 Where the evidence is inconclusive, “questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts 20 are functions solely of the [ALJ].” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 21 1982).

If the evidence is nonconclusive, 5 “questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely 6 for the Secretary.” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting 7 Waters v. Gardner, 452 F.2d 855 , 858 n.7 (9th Cir. 1971)). 8 IV.

“The testimony of a vocational expert ‘is valuable only to the extent that it is supported by medical evidence.’” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 756 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Thus, the Court’s task is to ask “‘whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached’ by the Commissioner.” Silvers v. Colvin, 67 F. Supp. 3d 570, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)).

The ALJ 22 also may “draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence.” Sample v. Schweiker, 23 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982). 24 1 ARNP Freed opined that plaintiff’s trauma from the past would interfere with her 2 ability to stay on task for a two-hour period more than once a day, would cause lapses 3 in concentration lasting 15 minutes to an hour, would cause her to take twice as long to 4 perform tasks as the average person, and would cause her to miss work more th…

Wash. Sept. 2, 2022) (citing Sample v. 20 Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (“[q]uestions of credibility are solely within the 21 control of the ALJ”)). 22 Plaintiff also advances the same conclusory arguments regarding the consistency of 23 D.C.’s statements with the record and her activities as she did regarding her own testimony. 1 (Dkt. # 16 at 17-18.) As explained above, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s assessment of 2 Plaintiff’s testimony, and the ALJ’…

However, “[t]he mere existence 13 of an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability.” Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th 14 Cir. 1993); see also Verduzco v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Although the 15 appellant clearly [has] diabetes, high blood pressure, and arthritis, there is no evidence to support 16 his claim that those impairments are ‘severe.’”); Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642-43 (9th 17 Cir. 1982) (“The existence of emotional dis…

See Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (“[i]n 23 reaching his findings, the [ALJ] is entitled to draw inferences logically flowing from the 24 evidence.”); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[a]s a reviewing 25 court, we are not deprived of our faculties for drawing . . . inferences from the ALJ’s 26 opinion”). 27 3.

See Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 20 1982) (“Where evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s 21 conclusion which must be upheld.

The ALJ did not engage in improper speculation. 15 See Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (“In reaching his 16 findings, the law judge is entitled to draw inferences logically flowing from the 17 evidence.”) (cited sources omitted).

The mere diagnosis of an impairment 2 listed in Appendix 1 is insufficient to sustain a finding of disability; the impairment “must 3 also have the findings shown in the Listing of that impairment.” Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 4 1545, 1549-50 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525 (d)); see also Sample v. 5 Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (“existence of emotional disorder, however, 6 is not per se disabling;” “there must be proof of the impairment’s disabling…

See Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Where evidence is 12 susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion which must be 13 upheld.

See Sample 22 v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Where evidence is susceptible of more than 23 1 one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion which must be upheld.