Robert H. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee

concurring:

I concur, but wouldadd the following to the discussion of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines.

Initially, a claimant bears he burden of proving that he or she is disabled. Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir.1986). A claimant makes a prima facie showing of disability by proving that he or she cannot perform his or her past work. Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir.1984). Once this is shown, the burden of proof shifts to the Secretary to show that the claimant can perform “other work” considering his or her residual func- tional capacity, age, education, and work experience. Id. at 1456 . The “other work” *578 must be available in the national economy in “significant numbers,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (b)(3) (1987), but the opportunities may lie either in the region where the claimant lives or in several other regions in the country, § 404.1566(a). The full five-step process of determining disability is described at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 .

Desrosiers made a prima facie showing of disability by proving that he was not capable of performing his past work. As a result, the burden shifted to the Secretary to show that Desrosiers was not disabled because…

This is an appeal from the district court’s judgment that upheld the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to deny Desrosiers Social Security disability insurance benefits. On appeal, Desrosiers contends that (1) the Secretary’s finding that he can perform the full range of light work is erroneous because that finding is not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the Secretary’s use of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to find that Desrosiers is not disabled is incorrect because he has pain and postural limitations not covered by the Guidelines.

We reverse and remand for further proceedings. We do so on the basis that the Secretary’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence. The basis of our holding that the Secretary’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence necessitates a remand for further proceedings. Because of the remand we shall address the second of Desrosiers’ contentions.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Desrosiers, a fifty-three-year-old former steel worker, complains of back problems that limit his ability to engage in most sustained physical activities without experiencing increasing and ultimately severe pain.…

846 F.2d 573 21 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 543, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 17985.5 Robert H. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 87-5765. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 11, 1987. Decided May 16, 1988. Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Williams & Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Judith A. Waltz, Asst. Regional Counsel, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before SNEED, PREGERSON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. SNEED, Circuit Judge: 1 This is an appeal from the district court's judgment that upheld the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to deny Desrosiers Social Security disability insurance benefits. On appeal, Desrosiers contends that (1) the Secretary's finding that he can perform the full range of light work is erroneous because that finding is not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the Secretary's use of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to find that Desrosiers is not disabled is incorrect because he has pain and postural limitations not…