Gallegos

concurring:

I concur in the majority opinion but write separately because I believe the ALJ’s determination of past relevant experience was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, I believe this case should be reversed and remanded for reconsideration regardless of Gallegos’ date of disability.

In order for Gallegos’ one month of work as a cannery line worker in either 1988 or 1989 to qualify as past relevant experience, it must constitute “substantial gainful activity,” which is defined as work that “(a) [¡Involves doing significant and productive physical or mental duties; and (b) [i]s done (or intended) for pay or profit.” 20 C.F.R. 404.1510. A one-month job as a cannery worker does not constitute substantial gainful activity. See Gatliff v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 172 F.3d 690, 694 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that two months is not a significant enough period *138 of time to constitute substantial gainful activity). Regardless of Gallegos’ exact date of disability, the one-month of work in 1988 or 1989 was not substantial gainful activity and therefore does not constitute past relevant experience.

Dissenting:

The majority disposition, to the extent it has two votes, concludes that the ALJ’s finding of past relevant experience is not supported by sufficient evidence. I disagree. Because the majority disposition does not address Gallegos’s other claims, I do not address them here. However, I believe that Gallegos’s remaining claims are similarly without merit and do not warrant reversal.

The district court properly affirmed the decision denying benefits if the denial was “supported by substantial evidence and based on the application of correct legal standards.” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.1997). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance ... [w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the [ ] decision.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Past relevant work is defined as work that was done within the past 15 years, that was substantial gainful activity, and that was performed long enough to learn how to do it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (b)(1). Work may be substantial even if it is done on a part-time basis. Id. at § 416.972(a). During the administrative hearing,…

MEMORANDUM ***

Eulalia Gallegos appeals the district court’s order denying her appeal of the Administrative Law Judge’s finding her ineligible for social security income payments. She argues that the ALJ’s finding of past relevant experience is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, she contends that the ALJ failed to consider whether her one month of work in either 1988 or 1989 as a cannery line worker constituted an unsuccessful work attempt as defined by Social Security Ruling 84-25 rather than past relevant experience. The question whether Gallegos’ (apparent) one month of work qualifies as past relevant experience or as an unsuccessful work attempt depends on the date of her disability which cannot be determined with certainty from the record. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings.

Past relevant experience is “work ... done within the past 15 years, that was substantial gainful activity, and that lasted long enough ... to learn how to do it.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (b)(1). A finding of past relevant experience is significant…