Peter Mooney v. Michael Astrue

Good Law
374 F. App'x 705
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 201009-35436California810 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Peter D. Mooney seeks review of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s decision to deny him disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 401 , et seq. The district court affirmed the denial. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and do not recount them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse the district court with instructions to remand to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for additional proceedings.

The district court’s decision is reviewed de novo, Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005), and the Commissioner’s decision is reviewed for substantial evidence, Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir.1989).

I. Treating psychologist’s opinion

The ALJ rejected the opinion of Dr. Turner, Mooney’s treating psychologist, which concluded, based on objective testing, that Mooney was unable to work “due to both psychological and medical factors.” First, the ALJ rejected Dr. Turner’s opinion because Mooney “was still performing landscape work,” even though Mooney’s landscape job was through the VA’s…

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.