Opinion ID: 657245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: 9
10 HHS regulations require that disability claims be evaluated according to a five-step procedure. See 20 C.F.R. Secs. 416.920(b) to 416.920(f) (1993). In steps one through four, the claimant must demonstrate that he has a severe impairment and that he cannot perform his previous job. Here, the ALJ properly found that Erickson had a severe impairment and that his illness was sufficiently serious as to prevent him from performing his previous job. 11 Once the claimant has met the above requirements, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that he can engage in other types of substantial gainful work that exist in the national economy. See, e.g., Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir.1984). Here, the ALJ found that Erickson was able to perform light work as defined by HHS regulations. 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b); supra note 2. Accordingly, he found that Erickson was ineligible for disability benefits. It is this finding that Erickson challenges. 12
13 The district court ruled against Erickson because it erroneously believed that all of the doctors agree that the Plaintiff can handle light work. In fact, there is no evidence in the record that Erickson is capable of performing light work, and none of the medical experts so testified. 14 1. Examining Physicians. Neither of Erickson's two examining physicians ever found him capable of performing light work. They only made findings relating to Erickson's ability to perform his past relevant work. For example, Dr. James Schibanoff (Erickson's treating pulmonary specialist) found that Erickson was unable to perform any of his past relevant work. Similarly, Dr. Eva Abbo, M.D., an internist, reported that Erickson felt that he was unable to perform the heavy manual labor required at the construction site. She concluded that [t]he patient appears to be a reliable historian. In neither case did the examining physician volunteer or the government inquire as to whether he or she believed that Erickson was capable of handling light work. 15 2. Non-Examining Medical Expert. The non-examining doctor also did not find that Erickson was capable of performing light work. During the hearing, Dr. Schillaci was asked whether anything in the breathing test demonstrated that Erickson was not capable of lifting up to 20 pounds and standing or walking for eight hours. He answered no. 4 Similarly, Dr. Schillaci was asked whether there was anything about the disease that would prevent Erickson from standing for an eight hour day. He answered no unless, but was not permitted to finish his answer. 5 Moreover, Dr. Schillaci was never asked whether there was anything about Erickson's condition as a whole that would prevent him from performing light work. For example, Dr. Schillaci was never asked whether Erickson's other symptoms relating to pulmonary sarcoidosis (for example, exhaustion due to lack of oxygen or dizzy spells due to hyperventilation) might prevent him from engaging in light work. In fact, the ALJ abruptly cut off the medical expert's testimony just as he might have mentioned that very possibility. 6 16 We conclude that the ALJ erred by focusing solely on Erickson's test results and on his disease. The ALJ must consider all factors that might have a significant impact on an individual's ability to work. Varney v. Secretary of HHS, 846 F.2d 581, 585 (9th Cir.), relief modified, 859 F.2d 1396 (1988). These factors may include side effects of medications as well as subjective evidence of pain. See id. In this case, the non-examining medical expert did not consider whether Erickson's condition as a whole would interfere with his ability to perform light work. Because the expert focused solely on a single test and a single disease, he failed to take into account other significant factors such as fatigue due to a lack of oxygen and dizzy spells due to hyperventilation. Under Varney, the ALJ's failure to consider factors other than the pulmonary function test and the disease itself is in itself reversible error. Cf. Barney v. Secretary of HHS, 743 F.2d 448, 453 (6th Cir.1984) (holding it improper for the ALJ to assess the claimant's condition in a piecemeal fashion). Thus, the non-examining medical expert's testimony does not constitute a finding deserving of any weight with respect to Erickson's ability to do light work. 7 17 3. Vocational Expert. Finally, the vocational expert did not properly find that Erickson was capable of performing light work. Dr. Metcalf's testimony was based upon the improper assumption that Erickson would bluff--that is, lie--in order to obtain a job in the first place. 8 He analogized Erickson's case to that of an individual who suffered from epilepsy but who was willing and able to conceal the fact of his disorder from his employer. This analysis flies in the face of the regulations, the whole point of which is to require the government to demonstrate that the claimant can be hired as he is. See Gallant, 753 F.2d at 1456 ([A] hypothetical question should set out all of the claimant's impairments. (internal quotes omitted)). We cannot find that a person is able to perform jobs that are available in the economy if the only way he can get those jobs is to lie to his prospective employer. The expert also based his testimony upon the assumption that Erickson could find a job that would permit him to take random breaks throughout the day whenever a dizzy spell occurred. As the district court pointed out, this is highly unlikely. Most light-work jobs--ranging from cashier to security guard to packer to assembly line worker--require a continuous presence; one cannot simply abandon his post or duties for several minutes without seriously disrupting his job. 9 18 4. Summary. In sum, we hold that the government failed to meet its burden of proving that Erickson is capable of doing light work. There is simply no evidence to that effect in the record. Neither of Erickson's two examining physicians made such a finding. The non-examining physician gave only a partial answer to a question on this subject. He was asked only about a single diagnostic test and a single disease and was not permitted to finish his answer regarding Erickson's overall capabilities. The vocational expert improperly based his finding on an assumption that Erickson would be able to bluff his way past his prospective employers by concealing the truth from them. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Erickson is capable of performing light work. 19 In fact, the only evidence in the record shows that Erickson cannot perform light work. The vocational expert testified that individuals who fell down or something are unable to perform light work. As noted earlier, Erickson falls down as a result of his disease. The medical records and Erickson's own testimony also strongly support the conclusion that he cannot perform light work. 20
21 The decision to remand the case for additional evidence or simply to award the benefits is within the discretion of the court. Stone v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 530, 533 (9th Cir.1985). Because the case presents us with a full record that supports the conclusion that Erickson is disabled, we need not remand for further proceedings. See, e.g., Pitzer, 908 F.2d at 506; Varney, 859 F.2d at 1401; Gallant, 753 F.2d at 1457. The government wholly failed to carry its burden. Our finding of disability is particularly appropriate here: Erickson is clearly unable to perform his previous job, is virtually unemployable because of his serious breathing problems, and has been waiting for well over four years for his disability benefits. 10 Accordingly, we conclude that Erickson is disabled and is entitled to his benefits. 11