Sawyer

Sawyer v. Astrue

Good Law
303 F. App'x 453
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 12, 2008No. 07-35078California395 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Mitchell Sawyer appeals from denial of his application for Social Security disability *455 benefits. The district court affirmed the denial, and this appeal followed.

We review the district court’s decision de novo. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). The Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal error. Id.

We reverse the district court. An ALJ is required to consider as opinion evidence the findings of state agency medical consultants; the ALJ is also required to explain in his decision the weight given to such opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 (f)(2)(i)-(ii); see also SSR 96-6P (1996), 1996 WL 374180 *2 (S.S.A.1996) (stating that an ALJ “may not ignore” the opinions of state agency medical consultants “and must explain the weight given to the opinions in their decisions”). The ALJ failed to consider the findings of state agency medical consultants Cathy Salmas and Dr. J. Scott Pritchard because he was mistaken as to what their findings were. Although the ALJ noted that he agreed with the limitations assessed by the state agency consultants, his RFC assessment did…

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.