Frohm

Frohm v. Astrue

Good Law
320 F. App'x 819
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 3, 2009No. 07-35802California493 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*820 MEMORANDUM *

Claimant Jan Frohm (“Frohm”) filed his initial application for disability insurance in 1997. Benefits were denied, but we remanded for proper consideration of Frohm’s subjective pain testimony. In 2005, a different ALJ found that Frohm’s disability ended on June 30, 1998. The Appeals Council denied Frohm’s request for review, and the district court affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision. We affirm.

We may set aside the ALJ’s decision only when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or is premised on legal error. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 , 1214 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005). Here, the ALJ found at Step One of the disability inquiry that Frohm had engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) after June 30, 1998, and was therefore not disabled. The ALJ alternatively found at Step Four that Frohm could perform his past relevant work after June 30, 1998. Because of the dearth of specific evidence in the record regarding Frohm’s earnings, we affirm based on the ALJ’s Step Four determination that Frohm could engage in his past relevant work.

The ALJ found Frohm not disabled at Step Four because by July 1, 1998, Frohm could engage in past…

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.