Ortega v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Ninth Circuit

Ortega v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

13 F. App'x 607

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 2001

DocketNo. 99-35885; D.C. No. CV 98-06247-MRH

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F. App'x 607 (Ortega v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration) 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

Ortega v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 13 F. App'x 607 (9th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

Edith M. Ortega (“Ortega”) appeals a judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Ortega’s claim for Supplemental Social Security Income disability benefits. She argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Aho, [608]*608the examining psychologist, in favor of Dr. Warner, the nonexamining medical expert. She also contends that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Floyd, Ortega’s treating physician. We agree.

Even though the opinions of Dr. Floyd (treating doctor) and Dr. Aho (examining doctor) were contradicted by the opinion of the nonexamining doctor, the ALJ could not reject them unless he provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir.1995). The ALJ did not provide such reasons.

‘Where the Commissioner fails to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the opinion of a treating or examining physician, we credit that opinion ‘as a matter of law.’ ” Lester, 81 F.3d at 834 (quoting Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir.1989)). When the ALJ presented the vocational expert with the hypothetical based on Dr. Aho’s evaluation of Ortega, the vocational expert found that there were no jobs for which Ortega would be suitable. Because the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Aho and Dr. Floyd, there are no outstanding issues to resolve, and it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find Ortega disabled if such evidence were properly credited, we remand for payment of benefits. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir.1996).

REVERSED and REMANDED for payment of benefits.

jjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

***

Edith M. Ortega (“Ortega”) appeals a judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Ortega’s claim for Supplemental Social Security Income disability benefits. She argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Aho, [608]*608the examining psychologist, in favor of Dr. Warner, the nonexamining medical expert. She also contends that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Floyd, Ortega’s treating physician. We agree.

Even though the opinions of Dr. Floyd (treating doctor) and Dr. Aho (examining doctor) were contradicted by the opinion of the nonexamining doctor, the ALJ could not reject them unless he provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir.1995). The ALJ did not provide such reasons.

‘Where the Commissioner fails to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the opinion of a treating or examining physician, we credit that opinion ‘as a matter of law.’ ” Lester, 81 F.3d at 834 (quoting Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir.1989)). When the ALJ presented the vocational expert with the hypothetical based on Dr. Aho’s evaluation of Ortega, the vocational expert found that there were no jobs for which Ortega would be suitable. Because the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Aho and Dr. Floyd, there are no outstanding issues to resolve, and it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find Ortega disabled if such evidence were properly credited, we remand for payment of benefits. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir.1996).

REVERSED and REMANDED for payment of benefits.

jjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F. App'x 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortega-v-commissioner-of-the-social-security-administration-ca9-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack