Wolfram
Wolfram v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Ted Wolfram appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Wolfram’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We reverse.
We review the district court’s order affirming denial of benefits by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) de novo. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 590 (9th Cir.2009). 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 as a whole. Id. at 591 . Disability claims are evaluated under the familiar five-step inquiry. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520. Here, the ALJ erred at steps two and five.
The ALJ erred at step 2 by failing to provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of Wolfram’s treating physicians. Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating source than the opinion of a doctor who did not treat the claimant, Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir.1987), and more weight to the opinion of an examining source than a nonexamining source, Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502 , 506 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1990).…