Salmon

Salmon v. Astrue

Good Law
309 F. App'x 113
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 16, 2009No. 07-15933California1,114 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mary Salmon (“Salmon”) appeals the district court’s denial of her claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 405 (g) seeking reversal and remand of the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that she is not entitled to disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Salmon claims that, as a result of a car accident, she suffers from mental and physical impairments that prevent her from working. She asserts that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed properly to recognize and credit her mental impairment, improperly weighed the competing medical opinions in the record with regard to her physical impairments, and improperly rejected her pain testimony as not credible. We may set aside the Commissioner’s denial of benefits when the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir.2004). We review de novo the district court’s decision upholding the denial of benefits and reverse and remand. Id.

In rejecting Salmon’s claim of mental impairment, the ALJ failed to weigh the evidence properly. The ALJ rejected the evaluation of…

Dissenting Opinion

Gorsuch, J.

dissenting.

I would affirm the district court’s disposition of this case for substantially the same reasons Judge Fogel gave in his extensive and thoughtful opinion. The question before this court is a narrow one. It is not whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) failed to weigh the evidence properly, or whether we would credit the same evidence and reach the same outcome as the SSA did. It is only whether the SSA’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance — it is such relevant evidence that reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion.” Moncada v. Chafer, 60 F.3d 521 , 523 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). I respectfully submit that the district court correctly determined that the SSA’s conclusions were within the bounds of reason, if not the only reasonable result that might be reached on this record.

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.