Gregory Hostrawser v. Michael Astrue

*375 MEMORANDUM *

Gregory Hostrawser appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) affirming the denial of Hostrawser’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse and remand for an award of benefits.

We review the district court’s decision in a social security case de novo. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir.2007). The Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) disability determination is upheld unless it contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.2008). We consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating “a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 630 .

In determining whether an applicant is disabled, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) must perform a five-step sequential analysis until a finding of disability is affirmatively rejected or established. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a). At the first step,…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority disposition of this case. I would affirm the distinct court’s denial of social security benefits.

I.

I believe that the ALJ set forth specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of Mr. Hostrawser’s treating physicians, and instead crediting the opinions of examining physician, Dr. Rand, and a non-examining state agency physician, Dr. Raymond Fujikami, that Mr. Hostrawser was limited to light exertion with some postural limitations. The opinions of Dr. Rand and Dr. Fujikami can constitute “substantial evidence” supporting the rejection of treating physicians’ opinions. Even assuming that both Dr. Rand and Dr. Fujikami should be considered non-examining physicians, “opinions of non-treating or non-examining physicians may also serve as substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with independent clinical findings or other evidence in the record.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002). That standard was met here.

Treating physician Dr. Armold opined that Mr. Hostrawser could lift less than 10 pounds, stand less than a half-hour, and sit for one-half to one hour in a workday. The ALJ…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY HOSTRAWSER No. 08-17474

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02098-JAT

v.

MEMORANDUM *

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 15, 2010 San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, HUG, CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Gregory Hostrawser appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor

of the Commissioner of Social Security ('Commissioner') affirming the denial of

Hostrawser's application for disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. y 1291. We reverse and remand for an award of benefits.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. We review the district courtùs decision in a social security case de novo.…