Barnhart

Lee v. Barnhart

Good Law
214 F. App'x 660
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 21, 2006No. 04-56575California230 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Under the Social Security Act, “disabled” is defined as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically-determinable impairment that has lasted, or can be expected to last, for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Here, the medical evidence and testimony from the vocational expert supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Mr. Lee was not disabled during the closed period, because he suffered from an impairment that improved with conservative treatment, and he thus retained functional capacity to perform “light” work.

The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for not fully crediting Mr. Lee’s testimony that he was incapable of doing any work. As the ALJ noted, Mr. Lee testified that his condition improved with conservative treatment and could be controlled with medication. When the ALJ concluded that Mr. Lee retained the capacity to work as a cashier, Mr. Lee objected because he was “overqualified.” The ALJ correctly responded, “I understand that you’re over qualified for these jobs. The issue is whether there are jobs out there ... that you could perform.”…

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.