Taylor

Taylor v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Good Law
339 F. App'x 842
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 5, 2009No. 08-35332California553 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Frank Taylor appeals from the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits, arguing that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) effectively rejected the opinion of his treating physician without giving any reasons for the rejection. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

Dr. Bennett Goss, Taylor’s treating physician, opined that Taylor could not sustain work “requiring him to be on his feet for any significant length of time.” To the extent this opinion was unclear, the ALJ had a duty to ask the doctor for clarification. See DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 (9th Cir.1991). The ALJ’s finding at step four that Taylor could stand and walk for two to four hours of an eight hour workday; his description of Dr. Goss’s opinion as consistent with a physical capacity assessment finding that Taylor could stand for up to two hours and walk for up to four hours; and his acceptance of the vocational expert’s testimony that Taylor could perform two jobs that require walking four hours are not, without further clarification, a “rational interpretation” of Dr. Goss’s opinion. Batson v. Comm’r, 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). The ALJ’s denial was…

Dissenting Opinion

Scannlain, J.

dissenting:

Because I believe that the ALJ’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) determination at step four reflects a rational interpretation of Dr. Bennett Goss’s opinion, I must respectfully dissent from the court’s decision.

The ALJ credited Dr. Goss’s opinion that Taylor could not work if he was required “to be on his feet for any significant length of time.” My colleagues conclude that it is irrational to credit this opinion, yet to arrive at the ALJ’s RFC determination.

“Dr. Goss’s opinion,” the ALJ stated, “is consistent with results of a physical capacity assessment ..., which suggested an ability to perform sedentary work on a full-time basis with standing in a stationary position for up to two hours of an eight-hour workday and walking and moving about for up to four hours of an eight-hour workday.” It would be quite unusual for an ALJ to contradict himself in the same sentence, so we ought not reverse unless we are compelled to do so. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004).

We are not so compelled. In my view, it was not contradictory for the ALJ to determine that Taylor can stand or walk between two to four hours in an eight…

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.