Lester v. Chater
- Decided
- November 3, 1995
- Docket
- No. 93-36136
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,990 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute, superseded on other grounds (17 of 67 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Stell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
What later courts said
- holding that the credit-as-true rule is mandatory, but only where the claimant would be disabled if his testimony were credited — Vasquez v. Astrue (2009)
- holding that the credit-as-true rule is mandatory, but only where the claimant would be disabled if his testimony were credited — Vasquez v. Astrue (2008)
- holding that an ALJ must have specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion when it is contradicted by another doctor — Michelle Hurter v. Michael Astrue (2012)
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
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge.
James Lester challenges the Commissioner’s denial of his application for Social Security disability benefits. He argues that the Commissioner erred in failing to take into account the combined impact of his mental and physical impairments in determining whether his condition “equalled” a listed impairment, in disregarding the opinions of his treating physician and examining psychologist, and in rejecting his hearing testimony. We agree with Lester on each of these points. Because the Commissioner would have been compelled to find him disabled if not for these errors, we reverse and remand for payment of benefits.
I.
Cite this
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (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.