Sherry Howard, on Behalf of Sarah Wolff v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 9984·341 F.3d 1006·2003 WL 22025135·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7931·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18026
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 29, 200302-15587California3,490 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hug, J.

Sherry Howard (“Howard”), the maternal aunt and legal guardian of Sarah Wolff (“Sarah”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”)’s determination that Sarah is no longer disabled within the meaning of Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 -1383c, as of September 1, 1997. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . For the reasons below, we reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the Social Security Administration.

On appeal, Howard argues that the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision was not supported by substantial evidence because he engaged in a selective evaluation of the evidence and failed to consider the combined effects of Sarah’s impairments. Additionally, Howard asserts that the ALJ reviewed Sarah’s case under the incorrect legal standard and committed legal error by not making a reasonable effort “to ensure a qualified pediatrician or other individual who specializes in a field of medicine appropriate to” Sarah’s disability evaluate Sarah’s case, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(I). Each argument is addressed in…

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.