Gatliff

Gatliff v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Good Law
172 F.3d 690·99 Daily Journal DAR 3191·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5939·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2429
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 2, 1999No. 97-36161California2,339 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKeown, J.

Does a string of sequential, short-term jobs constitute “substantial gainful activity” under the Social Security Act (the “Act”)? 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Put more directly, does a claimant’s cobbling together some 150 different jobs over his remaining 25-year work life constitute meaningful, sustained employment?

We must decide whether a Social Security claimant’s ability to perform successive jobs, generally lasting no more than two months, renders him capable of substantial gainful activity. We conclude that it does not, and therefore reverse the judgment of the district court. Substantial employment cannot be pieced together from a collection of insubstantial attempts. This is one instance in which the maxim e pluri-bus unum does not apply.

BACKGROUND

Loyd E. Gatliff, Jr. is functionally illiterate and suffers from several severe mental impairments, including antisocial personality disorder, developmental reading and expressive language disorder, and probable attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Although he completed eleventh grade, with the last several years in special education, early on he was certified as a “mentally retarded child for special class…

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.