Opinion ID: 570446
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 1 We granted a rehearing en banc in Rice v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir.1990), and Bunnell v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.1990), to determine the appropriate standard for evaluating subjective complaints of pain in Social Security disability cases. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir.1991). We conclude the standard enunciated in Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir.1986), is a proper interpretation of the relevant law, and thus we overrule the concurring opinion in Bates v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir.1990), which held to the contrary. Relying on the Bates concurrence, the Rice and Bunnell panels rejected the claimants' contentions that the administrative law judge (ALJ) in each of their cases applied an erroneous standard to evaluate their pain. Accordingly, we remand both cases to the district courts for remand to the Secretary for a determination of the claimants' disabilities consistent with this opinion. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 2 The panels in Rice and Bunnell sufficiently set forth the facts of each case. See Rice, 912 F.2d at 1078-80; Bunnell, 912 F.2d at 1150-51. We only briefly summarize those facts here. The Rice Case 3 Arthur J. Rice submitted medical findings that he suffers from fibrositis. Apparently, the diagnosis of fibrositis involves a process of exclusion and a testing of certain 'focal tender points' on the body for acute tenderness. See Preston v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 854 F.2d 815, 817-18 (6th Cir.1988) (describing fibrositis). Fibrositis can cause muscle and musculoskeletal pain. Id. at 817. 4 Rice filed an application for Title II disability insurance benefits, complaining of severe and constant pain in his shoulders, back, and legs, as well as temporal headaches. Dr. Gell, at the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), examined Rice. Dr. Gell concluded Rice was suffering from fibrositis, but noted [m]ost patients are not totally disabled with this diagnosis. 5 The first ALJ found that Rice was suffering from a severe impairment, but rejected Rice's testimony concerning his pain because the ALJ found Rice's testimony was  'not fully credible and [did] not establish the existence of the disabling pain alleged in light of the objective medical evidence. [Rice]'s allegation of pain [was] not consistent with the medical signs and findings.'  Rice, 912 F.2d at 1079. A second ALJ also rejected Rice's claim after reconsidering Rice's claim in light of new evidence. This ALJ discredited Rice's complaints of disabling pain because they were not justified after thorough and repeated medical evaluations in all relevant areas of specialty. The Bunnell Case 6 Marcia C. Bunnell applied for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI. Bunnell produced medical evidence that she suffers from multiple hereditary exostoses. Exostoses are bony growths projecting outward from the surface of a bone, characteristically capped by cartilage ... result[ing] in the development of valgus, i.e., bent outward, ankles. Bunnell, 912 F.2d at 1150. Bunnell testified she suffered back pain all day and all night, which prevented her from sitting for prolonged periods or being in a stationary position for more than 15 to 20 minutes. The ALJ found Bunnell's claim of disabling pain to be not credible because it was not supported by the medical evidence of record. Id. at 1154.