Court Opinion

ID: 9490922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:58:37.165954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:23.847728
License: Public Domain

MESKILL, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I join in the majority’s holding that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, but write separately to dis*1185sent from part I of the opinion’s Discussion. Specifically, I object to the majority’s suggestion that, under Listing § 1.10.C., we assess a claimant’s “[inability to use a prosthesis effectively” against only those prostheses that are “reasonably available ” to the claimant (quoting Gamble v. Chater, 68 F.3d 319, 322 (9th Cir.1995) (emphasis added)).
In Gamble, the claimant suffered stump complications caused by an ill-fitting prosthesis. The court held that notwithstanding the existence of a properly fitting replacement prosthesis, the claimant had demonstrated an “[ijnability to use a prosthesis effectively” because the well-fitting replacement prosthesis was unaffordable and therefore not “reasonably available.” Here, although neither party has argued or briefed the merits of Gamble’s construction of Listing § 1.10.C., the majority in dicta nonetheless expresses its agreement with Gamble. DeChirico’s sole argument under Listing § 1.10.C. was that the injuries resulting from his use of six prostheses demonstrated that he could not use any prosthesis without injury. DeChiri-co did not argue in the alternative that, in the event the court determined that a serviceable prosthesis did exist, he nevertheless would meet Listing § 1.10.C. because the replacement prosthesis was not “reasonably available.” Accordingly, the Commissioner, responding only to DeChirico’s arguments and unaware that the majority would consider this unaddressed issue, did not have the opportunity to contest the merits of Gamble.
I, therefore, would limit the majority’s discussion of Gamble to the issues actually raised in this case, namely, whether a claimant’s inability to use a prosthesis without causing himself injury constitutes a stump complication under Listing § 1.10.C., and whether substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s decision that DeChirieo could use a prosthesis effectively. The language of Listing § 1.10.C. does not expressly limit our assessment of a claimant’s ability “to use a prosthesis effectively” to those prostheses that are “reasonably available.” Nor is it clear that this limitation reflects sound policy. See Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 97-2(9) (acquiescing to Gamble only in the Ninth Circuit). I prefer to refrain from supporting this construction until the issue of availability has been squarely raised in this Circuit. Notably, the majority expressly reminds DeChirieo that he is not barred from filing a new application for benefits. The majority’s unsolicited approval of Gamble might be construed as an invitation to DeChirieo to refile his claim using Gamble ’s reasoning. If the majority intends to send that message, I strenuously object. We should not give an advisory opinion that may commit our Court to a position on an issue that has not been argued.