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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 22, 1995

Docket94-35020

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 70 F.3d 529 (Harold ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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 at 324, that discussion is superceded by Johnson’s holding that the DOT classifications are rebuttable.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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 F.3d 529, 1995 WL 693076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-atkins-plaintiff-appellant-v-shirley-s-chater-commissioner-of-ca9-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack