Iida v. Heckler
| Decision Date | 31 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-3248,82-3248 |
| Citation | 705 F.2d 363 |
| Parties | Raymond IIDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Margaret HECKLER * , Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Michael R. Stebbins, Hayner, Waring, Stebbins & Coffey, North Bend, Or., for plaintiff-appellant.
Sidney I. Lezak, U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before CHOY, ALARCON and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Iida (Iida) appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) terminating Iida's period of disability and Social Security disability benefits. Iida contends that the Secretary's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g). We agree and reverse the decision of the district court.
Iida filed an application for Social Security disability insurance benefits on September 14, 1977. He was found to be unable to work due to back injuries and subsequent multiple surgeries in treatment of the injuries. The Secretary found Iida entitled to a period of disability with benefit payments commencing June 1, 1977. Re-examination of Iida's condition was scheduled for January, 1979.
In a letter dated January 15, 1979, the Department of Health and Human Resources (Department) informed Iida that the Social Security Administration had requested a review of his disability status to determine whether Iida's back condition continued to prevent him from working. The letter contained a Disabled Person Report Form, which Iida completed and returned, indicating that his condition had not improved.
In a letter dated February 12, 1979, the Department notified Iida that he had regained his ability to engage in substantial gainful activity as of February, 1979. Iida was given ten (10) days to submit any additional evidence, prior to a formal determination by the Social Security Administration. The Department's letter indicated that although Iida had a "moderately severe back problem" he "should be able to perform his past work with his present residual functional capacity" and therefore his disability status must cease as of February, 1979.
The determination to terminate Iida's benefits was based upon the reports of three orthopedists and a neurologist. Those reports were as follows.
Dr. J.P. Williams had treated Iida in 1977, at the time Iida initially applied for disability benefits. In a March 6, 1979 report, Dr. Williams stated that Iida had not regained his ability to engage in substantial gainful activity and that his condition had worsened since 1977. Dr. Williams listed the maximum possible activities Iida could undertake daily: walking two to three hours; sitting two to three hours; standing one hour; no repeated bending or reaching; and, no lifting over 20 pounds.
The second orthopedist, Dr. Jeffrey Bert, had been hired by the Secretary to examine Iida. Dr. Bert found that Iida was capable of only the very lightest of part-time jobs that would exclude sitting for over a half hour, long walks, and standing. Dr. Bert concluded that Iida was "almost completely disabled" and on a "permanent basis".
The third orthopedist, Dr. Donald G. Hill, stated that termination of Iida's benefits seemed to be a callous disregard of the patient's conditions and needs.
The neurologist Dr. Clifford J. Schostal examined Iida and found no neurological abnormalities and deferred to the orthopedic judgment and findings regarding the back condition.
On May 8, 1979, Iida received formal notice from the Social Security Administrator informing him that he had been determined to be "no longer disabled under social security law". Iida requested reconsideration, but the ruling of the Department was not changed.
On September 11, 1979, Iida filed a request for a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Following a December 3, 1979 hearing, the ALJ found that Iida's benefits were properly terminated.
Iida filed a request for review of the ALJ's decision. In an order issued on November 5, 1980, the Appeals Council vacated the hearing decision and remanded the case to the ALJ "for further proceedings, including a new decision."
Upon remand, the ALJ again found Iida's benefits were properly terminated. Iida filed another request for review of the hearing decision. The council stated that substantial evidence existed to support the conclusions of the ALJ terminating the benefits and therefore no basis existed for granting the request for review.
Iida then instituted this action in the district court. On April 8, 1982, the district court affirmed the Secretary's decision and dismissed the action. Iida timely appealed to this court.
The issue on appeal is whether, pursuant to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Heckler, L 83-107.
...no termination of SSI benefits until there is substantial evidence of actual improvement to the point of no disability); Iida v. Heckler, 705 F.2d 363 (9th Cir.1983) (Therefore, to terminate disability benefits, the Secretary has the burden of coming forward with evidence that the claimant'......
-
Manning v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...The ultimate burden of proving disability remains with plaintiff "even after an initial determination of disability." Iida v. Heckler, 705 F.2d 363, 365 (9th Cir.1983); contra, Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942, 944 (5th Cir.1991) (per curiam) ("the ultimate burden of proof lies with the Sec......
-
Krishnan ex rel. Deviprasad v. Massanari
...(D.D.C.2000) (citing Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 463 F.2d 38, 44 (2nd Cir.1972)); see also Iida v. Heckler, 705 F.2d 363, 365 (9th Cir.1983) (reinstatement of benefits appropriate when further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose). This was not su......
-
DEAN ON BEHALF OF DEAN v. Heckler, Civ. A. No. C 83-0638 L(A).
...1982), see also Heckler v. Lopez, 463 U.S. 1328, 104 S.Ct. 10, 11-12, 77 L.Ed.2d 1431 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, 1983); Iida v. Heckler, 705 F.2d 363 (9th Cir.1983); and Simpson v. Schweiker, 691 F.2d 966 (11th Cir.1982), counsel for the plaintiff maintains that the Secretary cannot termi......
-
Case survey
...of Health & Human Servs ., 755 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1985); Murray v. Heckler , 722 F.2d 499, 500 (9th Cir. 1983) ; Lida v. Heckler , 705 F.2d 363, 365 (9th Cir. 1983). After finding “absolutely no evidence” to support the Commissioner’s termination of the claimant’s benefits, the court......
-
Table of cases
...106 S.Ct. 2957, 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986), § 702.8 Lichter v. Bowen , 814 F.2d 430, 434 (7th Cir. 1987), §§ 209.3, 1209.3 Lida v. Heckler , 705 F.2d 363, 365 (9th Cir. 1983), § 201.1 Lida v. Heckler , 705 F.2d 363, 365 (9th Cir. 1983), § 201.1 Lidy v. Sullivan , 911 F.2d 1075, 1077 (5th Cir. 19......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...Health & Human Servs ., 755 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9 th Cir. 1985); Murray v. Heckler , 722 F.2d 499, 500 (9 th Cir. 1983) ; Lida v. Heckler , 705 F.2d 363, 365 (9 th Cir. 1983). After finding “absolutely no evidence” to support the Commissioner’s termination of the claimant’s benefits, the court......
-
Table of Cases
...106 S.Ct. 2957, 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986), § 702.8 Lichter v. Bowen , 814 F.2d 430, 434 (7th Cir. 1987), §§ 209.3, 1209.3 Lida v. Heckler , 705 F.2d 363, 365 (9th Cir. 1983), § 201.1 Lida v. Heckler , 705 F.2d 363, 365 (9th Cir. 1983), § 201.1 Lidy v. Sullivan , 911 F.2d 1075, 1077 (5th Cir. 19......