Reese Hughes v. Michael Astrue

Good Law
357 F. App'x 864
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 11, 200909-35032California577 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Reese Hughes appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision to deny his application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we will discuss them only as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We may set aside the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision only when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or is premised on legal error. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 , 1214 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005). The ALJ found that, without Hughes’s drug and alcohol abuse, Hughes retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a modified range of light work. At step five, the ALJ determined that, while Hughes could not perform his past relevant work, he could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Hughes argues that (1) the ALJ impermissibly rejected opinion testimony, (2) the hypothetical posed to the…

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.