Harold ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee

Ninth Circuit

Harold ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee

70 F.3d 529, 1995 WL 693076

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 22, 1995·No. 94-35020·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

We affirm the judgment entered by the district court essentially for reasons expressed in the district court’s well-written opinion, Atkins v. Shalala, 837 F.Supp. 318 (D.Or.1993). That opinion was rendered prior to our opinion in Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir.1995). In Johnson, we held that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, of the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOT”) provides classifications that are re-buttable by vocational experts. Id. at 1435-36. To the extent the district court’s opinion in this case indicates otherwise, see 837 F.Supp. at 324, that discussion is superceded by Johnson’s holding that the DOT classifications are rebuttable.

The district court was correct in concluding that the findings of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) were erroneous because the hypothetical question addressed to the vocational expert did not contain all the physical impairments suffered by the claimant. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422-23 (9th Cir.1988).

On remand, the ALJ’s findings should take into account the rebuttable presumption of the DOT classifications and all of the impairments of the claimant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

We affirm the judgment entered by the district court essentially for reasons expressed in the district court’s well-written opinion, Atkins v. Shalala, 837 F.Supp. 318 (D.Or.1993). That opinion was rendered prior to our opinion in Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir.1995). In Johnson, we held that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, of the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOT”) provides classifications that are re-buttable by vocational experts. Id. at 1435-36. To the extent the district court’s opinion in this case indicates otherwise, see 837 F.Supp. at 324, that discussion is superceded by Johnson’s holding that the DOT classifications are rebuttable.

The district court was correct in concluding that the findings of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) were erroneous because the hypothetical question addressed to the vocational expert did not contain all the physical impairments suffered by the claimant. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422-23 (9th Cir.1988).

On remand, the ALJ’s findings should take into account the rebuttable presumption of the DOT classifications and all of the impairments of the claimant.

Harold ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee, 70 F.3d 529, 1995 WL 693076 (9th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

70 F.3d 529 (Harold ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related