Hennen
Hennen v. Astrue
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ****
Clifford J. Hennen (“Hennen”) appeals the district court’s judgment affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying his application for social security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand for a calculation of benefits.
We review de novo a district court’s order upholding the denial of benefits, Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.1998). We will set aside a denial of benefits only where the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir.2006).
Hennen argues that the ALJ erred by finding his testimony not credible, and in failing to give specific, clear’, and convincing reasons for so finding. 1 Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir.1996) (“If the claimant produces evidence to meet the Cotton [v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir.1986)] test and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.”). We agree.