DeClements
DeClements v. Astrue
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Appellant Mark DeClements (“DeCle-ments”) appeals from the district court’s upholding of a partially favorable social security determination, seeking four more months of disability benefits. DeClements contends that the uncontroverted examining physicians’ reports establish that he was disabled as of January 16, 2002, not as of May 27,2002, as the ALJ found.
On April 17, 2002, the report of examining physician Dr. Puzon established that DeClements was severely limited in his movements and could not work until surgery was performed to repair his hernia. Previously, on January 16, 2002, the report of examining physician, Dr. Waffle, established that DeClements was in extreme pain unless placed in head down position. An ALJ may reject an uncontroverted opinion of an examining physician only for clear and convincing reasons. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1990). The ALJ failed to explain why he discredited the examining physicians’ opinions, merely stating that he found DeClements was not credible until DeClements suffered a gunshot wound on May 27, 2002, and that the examining physician’s opinions were not sufficiently complete.
We cannot determine…
Concurring Opinion
Rawlinson, J.
I concur in the decision to remand this matter for the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to utilize the services of a medical consultant to substantiate the onset date determined by the ALJ.