Court Opinion

ID: 9486091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:37:31.052866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:31.347268
License: Public Domain

RYMER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm because there is no evidence that Ramirez’s “dysthymic disorder” precluded him from returning to suitable work or was so severe as to be disabling. See Perez Torres v. Secretary of HHS, 890 F.2d 1251, 1254-55 (1st Cir.1989) (“a dys-thymic disorder is a chronic mood disturbance involving either a depressed state or a loss of interest or pleasure in almost all usual activities and pastimes_ It is a less severe condition than a major depressive episode and occupational impairment is usually mild to moderate because of the chronic, rather than severe nature of the syndrome.”); Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.1982) (“[t]he existence of emotional disorder ... is not per se disabling .... In addition, there must be proof of the impairment’s disabling severity.” (quotation omitted).) Even if Dr. Townsend’s testimony had been fully credited, Ramirez has not shown that he would have established that he was “disabled” despite any functional limitations caused by his emotional disorder. Therefore I respectfully dissent.