Valenzuela

Valenzuela v. Astrue

Good Law
247 F. App'x 927
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 10, 2007No. 05-16566California843 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Valenzuela appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of Valenzuela’s application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits based on his inability to work due to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Hepatitis C. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). We reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for the calculation and award of benefits.

The district court incorrectly found that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision is supported by substantial evidence. 1 The ALJ relied on three grounds in determining that Valenzuela was credible as to the existence of his subjective pain, but not as to its severity. First, the ALJ concluded that Valenzuela’s pain was not as severe as Valenzuela indicated because he was only taking “non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication” instead of a stronger pain medication. However, Valenzuela explained that he was unable to take stronger medication because he suffered from Hepatitis C. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 602 (9th Cir.1989) (An ALJ may not “rely on the…

Concurrence in Part

Scannlain, J.

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree, for the reasons explained in the court’s disposition and because of the government’s concessions at oral argument, that this case should be remanded. At this point, however, I believe that it is premature for our court to direct an award of benefits. I would therefore simply remand for further administrative proceedings. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2000).

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.