Whitehorn
Whitehorn v. Astrue
Opinion
Concurrence in Part
Tallman, J.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I believe the ALJ did not err in discrediting Whitehorn’s subjective complaints and would affirm that portion of his judgment. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
The majority is correct that “[ojnce a claimant has established a medical basis for a particular symptom, the ALJ can only reject reports of such a symptom ‘by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.’ ” Maj. Disp. at 680 (quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir.2007)). However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the ALJ failed to state adequate clear and convincing reasons for disbelieving Whitehorn’s testimony.
Social Security Ruling 96-7p sets forth factors which an ALJ may consider when disregarding a claimant’s subjective complaints. The ALJ specifically referred to 96-7p in his decision and discussed the factors presented therein. These factors include:
Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 ; see also Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir.1996). These factors are then balanced against the whole of the record to determine whether a grant of benefits is warranted. See Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-7p (“Assessment of the…
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Claimant Jacqueline Whitehorn filed an application for disability insurance benefits on October 23, 2003, citing ongoing health problems relating to severe asthma and chemical sensitivities. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Whitehorn’s application. Whitehorn requested review by the Appeals Council, and submitted a new letter from her treating physician. Whitehorn alleged .that this new letter further corroborated her disability. The Appeals Council disagreed, and adopted the ALJ’s decision. The district court similarly rejected Whitehorn’s arguments, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
In this appeal, Whitehorn makes two arguments. First, she alleges that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Holly Strong. Second, she challenges the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding as not supported by convincing reasons. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reject Whitehorn’s first argument, but agree that the ALJ’s reasons for disbelieving White-horn were not sufficiently convincing. We therefore reverse and remand to the ALJ.
1. Whitehorn’s Treating Physician