McConner

McConner v. Halter

Good Law
15 F. App'x 399
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 5, 2000No. 99-56039; D.C. No. CV-98-07544-CTCalifornia741 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Michael McConner appeals the magistrate judge’s summary judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny him social security benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner adopted the finding of an Administrative Law Judge that McConner had the residual functional capacity to perform light work, and was therefore not entitled to Title II benefits. Because the ALJ inadequately assessed the medical evidence, particularly Dr. Compton’s opinion, there is need for further factfinding as to McConner’s limitations with respect to sitting and standing.

As a preliminary matter, McConner asks us to determine whether Dr. Compton should be considered his treating physician rather than an examining physician. Under the criteria outlined in Ghokassian v. Shalala, 41 F.3d 1300, 1303 (9th Cir.1994), and noting that neither the doctor nor the patient appears to have considered Dr. Compton to be McConner’s treating physician, we conclude the ALJ properly considered Dr. Compton an examining physician and not entitled to the deference accorded to treating physicians.

To disregard the uncontradicted opinion of an examining physician,…

Concurring Opinion

Ferguson, J.

I concur that the case be reversed and remanded. I would mandate that the remand be for the payment of benefits. The case has been in the process of adjudication for over ten years and it would be to the benefit of both the claimant and the government that there be a definitive ending now. The record supports an award of benefits.

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.