Worth v. Astrue

330 F. App'x 642 (9th Cir. 2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2009

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Roy Worth’s application for disability insurance benefits. The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings that Worth’s impairments did not equal the relevant listings and that he retained the residual functional capacity for light or sedentary work with accommodations.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Paez; Smith; Wardlaw
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
May 20, 2009
Procedural posture
Appeal from a judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying Worth's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the administrative law judge's determinations for substantial evidence and affirmed where the findings were supported by substantial evidence. It also applied the Ninth Circuit standard requiring specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting a controverted treating or examining medical opinion.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Roy Worth v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

administrative lawjudicial review of agency actionstandard of reviewappellate proceduredisability definition

Practice areas

Social Security disability benefitsadministrative lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's determination that Worth's impairments were not medically equivalent to Listings 1.04(A) or 1.02(A).
  2. Whether substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's determination that Worth retained the residual functional capacity to perform full-time light or sedentary work with accommodations.
  3. Whether the administrative law judge gave specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Galvas's controverted opinion that Worth could not work a full day.

Holdings

  1. The administrative law judge's step-three determination that Worth's impairments were not medically equivalent to the listed impairments was supported by substantial evidence.
  2. The administrative law judge's determination that Worth could perform full-time light or sedentary work with accommodations was supported by substantial evidence.

Key quotations

The ALJ provided several “specific and legitimate reasons” for rejecting Dr. Galvas’s controverted opinion that Worth could not work a full day (at 644)

Factual background

Worth claimed disability based on impairments affecting his ability to work and walk. The medical record showed neither nerve-root compression nor related sensory or reflex loss, and his walking limitations were not sufficiently extreme to prevent effective ambulation. The administrative law judge found that Worth retained the residual functional capacity for full-time light or sedentary work with accommodations and rejected Dr. Galvas's contrary opinion because it conflicted with other medical evidence, contained internal inconsistencies, was inconsistent with Worth's reported daily activities, and lacked supporting medical findings.

Procedural history

The Commissioner denied Worth's application for disability insurance benefits. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's final decision, and Worth appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's findings regarding medical equivalence and residual functional capacity.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…