Raymond E. ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
- Decided
- May 1, 1995
- Docket
- 12-56241
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,694 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that it is “solely the province 8 of the ALJ to resolve conflict[s]” between medical opinions — (SS) Goltz v. Commissioner of Social Security (2024)
- holding that it is the ALJ’s duty to resolve conflicts in the record, and where the ALJ arrives at a rational conclusion that is supported by the record, the ALJ’s decision must stand — Julio Ocampo v. Martin O'Malley (2024)
- holding that it is the 19 ALJ’s job to resolve any conflicts — Marva Ann Johnson v. Andrew Saul (2021)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
RYMER, Circuit Judge:
Raymond E. Andrews appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, affirming the Secretary’s denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. Andrews argues that the Administrative Law Judge improperly rejected the conclusions of the examining psychologist without giving clear and convincing reasons for doing so, and that the determination of nondisability was not based on substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He further asserts that, even if the ALJ were entitled to discount the opinion of the psychologist who examined him, the ALJ’s decision must nonetheless be reversed because the hypothetical that formed the basis for the vocational expert’s opinion did not accurately reflect the limitations found by the medical advisor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that the Secretary was entitled to adopt the opinion of the nonexamining medical advisor, who was present at the hearing and testified, and to discount the opinion of the examining physician, because the ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for doing so that were based on substantial evidence in the record in addition to the nonexamining psychologist’s opinion. However, because we agree that the hypothetical given to the vocational expert was inadequate, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Raymond E. ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee, 53 F.3d 1035 (1995)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.