James L. BATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis J. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

concurring:

We concur in the result reached by Judge Thompson, and in parts B, C, and D, but we cannot concur with the reasoning in part A of the opinion which addresses Bates’s subjective pain testimony. In particular, we disagree with Judge Thompson’s determination that an administrative law judge (AU) may not discredit subjective pain testimony solely on the ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical findings. In order to clarify our position, it is necessary to trace the evolution of the law regarding subjective pain testimony.

Prior to its enactment of the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794 (the Reform Act), Congress had not specifically addressed whether an individual’s subjective pain could be considered disabling. Congress, however, had clearly stated:

42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(1) (1983) (emphasis added). In section 423(d)(3), the statute further stated:

(Emphasis added.) While this statutory language does not mention subjective pain testimony, it surely indicates that Congress intended that an alleged impairment had to be “medically determinable” before it could be considered disabling.

The Secretary…

894 F.2d 1059 28 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 416, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 15218A James L. BATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis J. SULLIVAN, M.D., * Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-3868. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 1989. Decided Jan. 23, 1990. Eli Halpern, Halpern & Smith, P.S., Rochester, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant. Gary J. Thogersen, Asst. Regional Counsel, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, WALLACE and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: 1 James L. Bates appeals the district court's judgment affirming the denial by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of his application for disability benefits. Bates argues that (1) the administrative law judge ("ALJ") failed to make findings sufficient to discredit his subjective pain testimony, (2) the ALJ erred in not giving weight to a state agency determination that he is disabled, (3) the ALJ improperly used the Medical-Vocational Guidelines ("grids") to find him not disabled, and (4)…

James L. Bates appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of his application for disability benefits. Bates argues that (1) the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to make findings sufficient to discredit his subjective pain testimony, (2) the ALJ erred in not giving weight to a state agency determination that he is disabled, (3) the ALJ improperly used the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (“grids”) to find him not disabled, and (4) the Appeals Council improperly disregarded the opinion of an examining psychiatrist. We have jurisdiction over Bates’ timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Bates was born in 1952. He attended school through the tenth grade and later obtained a GED, indicating the equivalent of a full high school education. He has worked as a carpenter’s helper, a welder, and for a brief period as a security guard.

Bates has not worked since October 1983 when he quit his job as a welder at a stove factory due to back pain. His back was injured in 1978 in a car accident and rein-jured in October 1983 while Bates was picking up a stove at work. Since he left his job…