Martha STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

Martha Stewart appeals from the district court’s order of summary judgment affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services’s denial of Stewart’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for further administrative proceedings.

*742 FACTS

Mrs. Stewart was born on October 27, 1940 and has completed high school. She worked as a cook or a “counter person” from 1971 to 1977, when she fractured her right hip. Her only work after this injury was as a reproduction clerk for two months, later in 1977 or 1978. She applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits (“benefits”) on February 5 and January 28, 1986, respectively, alleging that she has been unable to work since October 1,1982 due to back and hip problems. She later added right knee pain and right shoulder pain to her list of disabling conditions.

In May 1982, Dr. Page, one of Stewart’s treating physicians, opined that Stewart was “temporarily totally disabled for at least six months.” He recommended that arthroscopy be performed on Stewart’s right knee, and that she undergo a total…

concurring separately:

I concur in Judge Reinhardt’s opinion because the law of this circuit requires that I do so.

My difficulty with the case primarily has its origin in the manner in which this circuit deals with “excess pain” cases. These cases raise three substantial issues. The first is whether Congress has authorized the rejection of a requirement that excess pain be supported by objective medical findings. The second is that, if Congress has authorized this circuit’s approach to excess pain, under what, if any, circumstances will specific and justifiable findings exist that will justify a rejection of an excess pain claim by an AU. Finally, there is the issue whether our practice of directing that benefits be paid, upon our finding that the claim of excess pain has not been justifiably rejected, is proper.

Turning to the first issue, in 1984, Congress amended 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(5)(A) (Supp. IV 1986), to read as follows:

To read the language is to suspect that an untidy compromise was reached that does not satisfactorily resolve the first issue described above. Its enactment was in response to what Congress thought were administrative abuses in this area by the Reagan…

881 F.2d 740 26 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 523, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 14829A Martha STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services * , Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-6420. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 5, 1989. Decided Aug. 3, 1989. John Ohanian, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Nancy E. Wever, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before SNEED, REINHARDT and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 Martha Stewart appeals from the district court's order of summary judgment affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services's denial of Stewart's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for further administrative proceedings.FACTS 2 Mrs. Stewart was born on October 27, 1940 and has completed high school. She worked as a cook or a "counter person" from 1971 to 1977, when she fractured her right hip. Her only work after this injury was as a reproduction clerk for two months, later in 1977 or 1978.…