Hernandez

Hernandez v. Astrue

Good Law
342 F. App'x 310
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 13, 2009No. 06-55484California728 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied the disability insurance benefits that Jose Hernandez sought, and that denial was upheld by the district court. Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, and that decision was free from legal error, we affirm. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 , 1214 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005) (“We may reverse the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits only if it is based upon legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.”).

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Hernandez’s last insured date to qualify for benefits was June 30, 1997, a date prior to his alleged onset of disability. Hernandez was inconsistent in describing his employment with Subcontractors of Mexico, 1 and the ALJ gave Hernandez ample opportunity to explain those inconsistencies and clarify his relationship with Subcontractors. The ALJ was not required to credit a prior inconsistent statement instead, or to further develop the record, as Hernandez argues. The ALJ resolved Hernandez’s conflicting statements at the second hearing by carefully inquiring into the nature of Hernandez’s work for Subcontractors, and even allowed Hernandez…

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.