Court Opinion

ID: 9484568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:57:19.299349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:19.210579
License: Public Domain

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
Despite the majority’s concessions that “Tylitzki’s alcoholism [is] an ongoing condition,” Maj.Op. at 1413, that “there is substantial evidence indicating that Tylitzki’s condition ha[s] deteriorated from the days when he was able to hold the same job for nearly twenty-seven years,” id. at 1414, that Tylitzki was fired six times by the same employer between 1980 and 1983 for alcohol abuse and “undertook multiple rehabilitation programs during 1978-88,” id. at 1414, and that Tylitz-ki had been out of work for four years living in a halfway house at the time of the benefits hearing, id., the majority upholds the ALJ’s determination that this former truck driver, fifty-seven years of age in 1988 when he filed for disability, can go back to his past relevant work — driving eighteen-wheel tractor trailers.
In my view, it is clear that Tylitzki can’t return to his past relevant work. The substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole overwhelmingly supports my view. Everyone agrees and the record amply supports the finding that Tylitzki is a “binge” drinker. No one knows what triggers his drinking bouts. Not one scintilla of evidence from anyone suggests he can control the onset of a bout. Nor do these bouts come on ■a regular schedule. The fact that there are periods of uneven duration between bouts, some long, some short, is not evidence of control. Were there evidence that Tylitzki could control the bouts, that would be evidence of the ability to control. All the evidence, however, is to the contrary.
The ALJ gave the vocational expert a false picture in the propounded hypothetical question upon which Dr. Jones based his advice that Tylitzki could return to his past relevant work: he was asked to assume that Tylitzki would stay sober for eleven months, be drunk one month, and then, like clockwork, be sober again for eleven months. Id. at 1415. The record, to the contrary, shows an erratic pattern of drinking periods and hospitalizations. Dr. Jones may have tailored his testimony to reflect his own understanding of binge drinkers generally, id. at 1415 n. 2, but the record indicates that Tylitzki’s binge drinking is entirely unpredictable, with bouts mere weeks apart, or up to seventeen months apart.
The only medical evidence in the record as to Tylitzki’s disability is from two examining psychiatrists. Dr. Jimenez, a geriatric psychiatrist, reported diagnoses of continuous alcohol abuse, cirrhosis, and pancreatitis, as well as histories of gastrointestinal bleeds, withdrawal seizures, alcohol-induced peripheral neuropathy, alcoholic liver disease, and delirium tremens. He also noted that Tylitz-ki evidenced “moderate symptoms” of a major depressive disorder. He found “evidence of impaired concentration, impaired recent memory and concreteness in interpretation of abstractions.” Dr. Jimenez concluded that “Mr. Tylitzki should be considered temporarily totally disabled as he needs to truly stop his alcohol abuse if he is expected to survive. His best hope for [stopping his] alcohol abuse is to remain in active treatment at his rehabilitation house.”
Dr. Barron, who also conducted a psychiatric evaluation, found that Tylitzki
generally feels disabled and useless at the present time. He appears to have once been a proud person who perceives his life as having gradually gone down hill and do[es] not see any light at the end of the tunnel at this time____ In view of his history of sporadic drinking, he does not appear competent to handle funds on his own behalf. His total degree of psychiatric impairment is felt to be in the moderately severe to severe range.
*1417Neither the ALJ nor the majority give any reason for rejecting the examining psychiatrists’ assessments, as required by our previous eases. Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1454 (9th Cir.1984); see also Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1990) (“fail[ure] to advance any legitimate reasons for disregarding the examining physicians’ medical findings, reports, and opinion[s]” means that a decision to deny benefits is not supported by substantial evidence). Indeed, the majority is content to draw bits and pieces of those assessments and construe them as “support.” Maj.Op. at 1414 n. 1. Considered in context, however, Dr. Jimenez’s and Dr. Barron’s characterizations of Tylitzki’s condition indicate that he can’t possibly return to his past relevant work; try as it might, the majority is unable to persuade me that Tylitzki’s “temporary” total disability would permit him to drive big trucks while (as Dr. Jimenez recommended) he “remain[s] in active treatment at his rehabilitation house,” or that his “sporadic” drinking binges, coupled with psychiatric impairment in the “moderately severe to severe range” (Dr. Barron’s finding) do not render him incapable of resuming his former occupation.
I submit that there is not substantial evidence in the record, considered as a whole, to support a finding that this claimant can return to his past relevant work. Although the question before us is not highway safety, I confess to a chill running up my spine when I am told that Tylitzki is fit to wheel out one of the big ones onto the nation’s freeways. And highway safety does have at least some peripheral bearing on the claimant’s capacity to return to his past relevant work. I submit that the record viewed as a whole overwhelmingly supports my view that the substantial evidence in this ease is to the effect that Tylitzki can’t perform his past relevant work.
The only question for me is whether this man should get disability benefits. Since the ALJ made a finding that Tylitzki was capable of resuming his past work, he did not take the next step that otherwise would have been required: to consider whether there were other jobs in the economy that Tylitzki could perform.1 I would remand for that purpose.

. I note also that because Tylitzki is past age fifty-five, the Secretary must meet an even more stringent burden in denying his benefits application. Age fifty-five is the "point where age significantly affects a person's ability to do substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d) (1992). In order to meet these more stringent burdens, the Secretary must identify work for older claimants which is less demanding than their previous unsuitable work, id.., although the work "cannot require so little skill that anyone at all could do it, as older people are at a competitive disadvantage for such jobs.” Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir.1990).