Dogsleep

Dogsleep v. Astrue

Good Law
266 F. App'x 664
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 13, 2008No. 06-35693California569 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dogsleep seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination, at step five of the five-step sequential evaluation process, that she was not entitled to supplemental security income benefits because she was capable of performing work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (a)(4)(v) & 404.1560(c). At step five, the ALJ purported to describe Dogsleep’s work limitations in a hypothetical to the vocational expert. In response to this hypothetical, the vocational expert identified three jobs that Dogsleep could perform. However, the hypothetical did not reflect all of Dog-sleep’s limitations that had been identified in uncontroverted medical testimony, including that she was limited to superficial public contact, had a work pace that was slower than others, and would be overwhelmed by work with average demands for memory. When Dogsleep posed an alternative hypothetical question to the vocational expert that fully reflected the uncontroverted medical evidence, the vocational expert stated that a person with such limitations would be precluded from work.

The “ALJ is not free to disregard properly…

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.