Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Lester v. Chater
93-36136 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 1995). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51184
Description
Administrative Law Judge Fails to Consider Combined Effect of Disability Claimant’s Physical and Mental Impairments
Abstract
The Ninth Circuit has held that the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (SSA) failed to take into account the
combined effect of plaintiff’s mental and physical
impairments in determining whether his condition equaled a listed
impairment. After injuring his back in 1968 while working as a meat
cutter, plaintiff received disability benefits from 1968 to 1974.
He then worked at various part-time jobs but ceased working
altogether in 1982 due to worsening back pain. When he reapplied
for disability benefits in 1984, his application was denied, and he
appealed. The administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that,
although plaintiff had medically determinable mental impairments
(specifically, depression and a personality disorder), those
impairments resulted in only "moderate" limitations on
his functional capacity. The Appeals Council and the district court
affirmed. The court of appeals held that the ALJ applied an
incorrect legal standard in assessing whether plaintiff’s
combined impairments equaled the listing for "affective
disorders." Given that the consequences of plaintiff’s
physical and mental impairments are inextricably linked, SSA must
consider whether taken together they result in limitations equal in
severity to those specified in the listings. The court also found
that the ALJ erred in rejecting his treating physicians’
reports because they conflicted with the testimony of a
nonexamining medical advisor and that the ALJ erred in not offering
any specific reasons for her disbelief in plaintiff’s
complaints of pain. The evidence, when given the effect required by
law, demonstrated that plaintiff met or equaled the listing for
affective disorders; thus, the court remanded for payment of
benefits.
