From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McLeod v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 8, 2011
No. 09-35190 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011)

Summary

holding the ALJ reasonably rejected a doctor's conclusion that the claimant could not work because that is a determination reserved to the Commissioner

Summary of this case from Jasim G. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Opinion

No. 09-35190.

Filed February 8, 2011.

D.C. No. 9:07-CV-52-JCL.

Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

The last sentence of the order filed February 4, 2011 stating "No petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained, and the mandate shall issue in due course" is withdrawn so that the court can consider Appellee's petition for panel rehearing.

Appellee's petition for panel rehearing is deemed to be appropriately filed.


Summaries of

McLeod v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 8, 2011
No. 09-35190 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011)

holding the ALJ reasonably rejected a doctor's conclusion that the claimant could not work because that is a determination reserved to the Commissioner

Summary of this case from Jasim G. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

holding that VA disability rating "must be considered and ordinarily must be given great weight"

Summary of this case from Johnsamson v. Saul

holding error is not harmless where "the reviewing court can determine from the 'circumstances of the case' that further administrative review is needed to determine whether there was prejudice from the error"

Summary of this case from Hamasyan v. Berryhill

holding that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Seaunier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

holding that the ALJ did not have a duty to request additional information from two of plaintiff's treating physicians about the kind of work he could perform, because "substantially all of their medical records throughout the time they treated [him] were before the ALJ" and there "was nothing unclear or ambiguous about what they said"

Summary of this case from Hines v. Berryhill

holding that the ordinary harmless error rule applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Bryant v. Berryhill

holding that the harmless error rule ordinarily applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Nava v. Colvin

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Chavez v. Colvin

holding that a physician's evaluation of a claimant's ability to work is not entitled to deference because "[t]he law reserves the disability determination to the Commissioner"

Summary of this case from Tubb v. Colvin

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Harris v. Colvin

holding that the ALJ does not have to give deference to a witness's opinion on "the ultimate determination of disability"

Summary of this case from Jolley v. Colvin

holding that the harmless error rule ordinarily applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's decision to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Ireland v. Colvin

holding that the harmless error rule ordinarily applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's decision to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Worrall v. Colvin

holding that the harmless error rule ordinarily applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Wright v. Colvin

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Shubin v. Colvin

holding that under the harmless error standard applicable to social security disability appeals, the record must show "a substantial likelihood of prejudice" to the party claiming error in order to warrant reversal and remand

Summary of this case from Garza v. Colvin

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Migliore v. Colvin

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

Summary of this case from Moruzzi v. Astrue

holding that a claimant “need not necessarily show what other evidence might have been obtained had there not been error, but does have to show at least a ‘substantial likelihood of prejudice’ ” resulting from the error

Summary of this case from Palomares v. Astrue

holding that the ALJ had no duty to request more information from two treating physicians where "[i]t appears from the record that substantially all of their medical records throughout the time they treated [the claimant] were before the ALJ"

Summary of this case from McKowen v. Astrue

finding ALJ properly rejected doctor's opinion on whether claimant "could work at any job" as such determination was for Social Security Administration to make, and not for a physician

Summary of this case from Zamora v. Saul

finding that treating physician's opinion "is not binding on an ALJ with respect to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability"

Summary of this case from Balcaceres v. Berryhill

finding that while the treating physician's evaluation of a patient's ability to work, as opposed to a diagnosis of an impairment, may be "useful or suggestive of useful information," a physician "ordinary does not consult a vocational expert or have the expertise of one"

Summary of this case from Hilliker v. Berryhill

finding that an impairment may affect individuals differently, and the ultimate determination of whether the impairment results in a disability is reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security

Summary of this case from Ramsey v. Colvin
Case details for

McLeod v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:GENE R. McLEOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 8, 2011

Citations

No. 09-35190 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011)

Citing Cases

Evans v. Colvin

The harmless error rule applies to the review of administrative decisions regarding disability. See Garcia v.…

Bradley v. Astrue

The harmless error rule applies to the review of administrative decisions regarding disability. See McLeod v.…