杏十八新茶分享

 

Hiler v. Astrue

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Disability Law
  • Date Filed: 08-09-2012
  • Case #: 10-36171
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge M. Smith for the Court; Circuit Judges Goodwin and Fletcher.

In a Social Security Disability hearing, an ALJ errs by relying solely on an interim Veterans Affairs (VA) disability decision, where a later VA decision rejects the interim decision.

Clinton Hiler (Hiler) contends the ALJ erred and her findings are not supported by substantial evidence because it was error for her to rely on one specific rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Hiler鈥檚 second claim regarding his primary physician is not addressed. The ALJ used the 5-step 鈥渟equential evaluation process under 20 C.F.R. 搂 404.1520鈥 to find Hiler was temporarily disabled, which ended December 4, 1998, because of medical improvement of his condition. However, on July 20, 1998, Mr. Hiler had surgery for similar pain, where his Doctor deemed him suitable for 鈥渟edentary work.鈥 Conversely, the ALJ used a 2001 VA assessment to find 鈥淗iler had residual functional capability to lift or carry up to 20 pounds occasionally [and] to [sit or stand] for six hours of an eight-hour day.鈥 While a VA decision 鈥渄oes not necessarily compel the Social Security Administration to reach an identical result,鈥 due to the similarities between the Social Security and VA鈥檚 disabilities programs, the ALJ must consider and 鈥渙rdinarily give[s] great weight to鈥 the VA鈥檚 finding in making his decision. Since the programs are not identical, 鈥渢he ALJ may give less weight to a VA disability rating if he gives persuasive, specific, valid reasons for doing so that are supported by the record.鈥 Since Hiler鈥檚 records include multiple VA decisions, reporting various degrees of disability, the ALJ 鈥渆rred in relying only on the 2001 decision,鈥 because 鈥淸t]he 2001 decision only proposed changes to Hiler鈥檚 ratings.鈥 The decision the ALJ relied on made 鈥渘o final changes as to Hiler鈥檚 disability rating, nor did it terminate his individual unemployability rating.鈥 The Court said the decisions were 鈥渘ot inconsistent鈥 with another, and the ALJ erred by relying on a 2001 decision while ignoring the 1998 and 2002 decisions. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top