Sam

Sam v. Astrue

Good Law
550 F.3d 808·2008 WL 5205898
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 15, 200808-35108California997 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gary D. Sam, who suffers from a degenerative condition affecting his cervical spine, appeals the district court’s affir-mance of an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) order denying Sam disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The ALJ found Sam ineligible for benefits because he was not disabled on or before the date he was last insured, March 31, 1997. Sam argues that the ALJ was required by Social Security Ruling 83-20 (1983) (“SSR 83-20”) to utilize a medical expert to infer the onset date of Sam’s current condition in order to determine whether that condition arose during the time Sam was eligible for disability insurance benefits. We hold that SSR 83-20 does not require a medical expert where the ALJ explicitly finds that the claimant has never been disabled, and therefore affirm the denial of benefits.

I.

We review de novo a district court’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir.2007). The ALJ’s underlying determination “will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or it is based on legal error.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.