Bonilla v. Secretary of Health, Ed. & Welfare, 80-5897
| Decision Date | 19 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-5897,80-5897 |
| Citation | 671 F.2d 1245 |
| Parties | Rachael M. BONILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
F. James Bear, National City, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Dennis J. Mulshine, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before PREGERSON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, * District Judge.
Bonilla appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, after the Secretary denied her application for social security disability benefits. The district court found that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary's conclusion that Bonilla had no serious physical or mental impairment that prevented her from working. On appeal, plaintiff correctly contends that the Secretary's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because he failed to introduce expert vocational testimony. Therefore, the judgment is reversed.
In April 1976, Bonilla, a 40-year-old woman, injured her shoulder and neck when an electric buffer machine went out of control. At that time, she was employed as a janitress at Texas Tech. University. Bonilla claimed that her injury involved not only her neck and shoulder, but also her psychiatric ability to function.
The administrative law judge determined that even if the claimant's subjective complaints were credible, she nevertheless could return to at least some of her former work assignments as long as such assignments did not include the operation of heavy equipment. The Secretary cites a number of cases in favor of his proposition that a person is not disabled if he or she can perform the former work. Most of these cases, however, address a different issue. The cases are concerned with a person capable of doing different kinds of work, who loses only the ability to perform one of these. For example, if a person worked formerly as both a switchboard operator and a construction worker, and could no longer work as a construction worker but could still work as a switchboard operator, that person would not be considered disabled. It is not enough to simply state that there is some kind of work the claimant can do.
"The rule which emerges, is that except in the most obvious cases, the Secretary's burden is discharged only when there is an affirmative attempt to link the existence of certain specific jobs with the capacities and limitations of the individual claimant." Phillips v. Harris, 488 F.Supp. 1161, 1167 (W.D.Va.1980).
Neither the district court nor the administrative law judge specifically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Heckler
...considering her age, education and work experience. See Perry v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 461, 464 (9th Cir.1983); Bonilla v. Secretary of HEW, 671 F.2d 1245, 1246 (9th Cir.1982); Thomas v. Schweiker, 666 F.2d 999, 1002 n. 3 (5th Cir.1982); 42 U.S.C. Sec. We review the Secretary's decision to dete......
-
Perez v. Chater
...with the ALJ's findings as to plaintiff's skill level and functional limitations.33 See Bonilla v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 671 F.2d 1245, 1246 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (at step five, Secretary must show that claimant has capacity to perform specific job(s) that exist ......
-
Christensen v. Bowen, C-85-3326 SC.
...with specific findings showing that there is other substantial gainful activity that the claimant can perform. Bonilla v. Secretary of HEW, 671 F.2d 1245, 1246 (9th Cir.1982); Hall v. Secretary of HEW, 602 F.2d 1372, 1375 (9th Cir.1979). Under the "medical-vocational guidelines" ("grids") p......
-
Rosenboom v. Shalala, Cv. No. 92-1594-JU.
...to the Secretary to show what gainful work activities are within the claimant's capabilities. Bonilla v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 671 F.2d 1245, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). This court must review this case to see if the decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evid......