Lewis v. Astrue, 04-17414.

Citation498 F.3d 909
Decision Date03 July 2007
Docket NumberNo. 04-17414.,04-17414.
PartiesWilliam LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE,<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Bess M. Brewer and Eugenie Denise Mitchell, Brewer & Mitchell, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Michael A. Cabotaje, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Social Security Administration, San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-01578-GGH.

Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and DAVID A. EZRA,*** District Judge.

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:

William Lewis appeals from the district court's judgment following an order denying his motion for summary judgment and granting the Commissioner of Social Security's (Commissioner) motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner.

I.

Lewis applied for supplementary security income on May 24, 2000 and it was denied. Lewis requested a hearing, which was held on April 18, 2002. Lewis testified at the hearing, as did Stephen Schmidt, a vocational expert. Irwin Weinreb, M.D., an internist, testified by telephone as a medical expert.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a five-step sequential evaluation process in determining that Lewis was not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a) (providing for a five-step evaluation process). At Step 1, the ALJ determined that Lewis had not performed substantial gainful activity since April 18, 1988. Next, at Step 2, she considered whether Lewis had a "severe impairment." She concluded that Lewis was "impaired as a result of status post laminectomy and diabetes mellitus" and that due to these impairments, Lewis could not perform heavy lifting and was severely impaired. At Step 3, the ALJ determined that Lewis's severe impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment under the regulations.

Next, at Step 4, the ALJ analyzed whether Lewis was able to do past relevant work, and determined that he was not. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ considered the effects of Lewis's prior back surgery and diabetes. In addition to the back pain and diabetes, the ALJ also considered his "trochanteric bursitis and osteoarthritis of the left knee." The ALJ stated that Dr. Madireddi, a physiatrist who examined Lewis, observed that Lewis had a full range of motion in all joints and good motor strength; that he had reduced sensation in the left leg; that he needed a brace to walk long distances; that he was restricted from prolonged standing and walking; that he could not do repetitive squatting, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; and that he complained of pain with prolonged sitting. Further, the ALJ observed that x-rays of Lewis's knees showed "spurring at the patella," which the radiologist had interpreted as "minimal osteoarthritic changes of the left knee."

The ALJ also recounted some evidence that tended to show that Lewis engaged in drug-seeking behavior. Evidence of drug addiction included testimony from doctors, Lewis's behavior in hospitals, Lewis's admitted history of drug addiction, and the strength of the narcotics that Lewis was taking. The ALJ agreed with Dr. Weinreb, who testified that Lewis engaged in drug-seeking behavior. She also found Lewis's testimony not credible.

At Step 5, the ALJ accepted the vocational expert's testimony concerning the existence of jobs that could accommodate Lewis's limitations. She found that the number of jobs cited by the vocational expert constituted a significant number of jobs in the economy, and concluded that Lewis was not disabled.

Lewis requested review of the ALJ decision by the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Lewis sought judicial review of the ALJ decision by the district court. The district court concluded that the ALJ's assessment was fully supported by substantial evidence in the record, and based on proper legal standards. Lewis timely appealed.

II.

Lewis contends that the ALJ erred by failing to consider his bursitis at Step 2 of the sequential analysis.1 We review de novo the district court's order upholding the Commissioner's final denial of benefits. Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir.1999) (as amended). We affirm the district court if the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1562 cases
  • Gail Wash. v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 17, 2010
    ...find an impairment severe at step two provided that he or she considers that impairment in subsequent steps. See, e.g., Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir.2007); Maziarz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Newsome v. Barnhart, 444 F.Supp.2d 1195, 1200-01 (M.D.......
  • Knapp v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Washington
    • October 28, 2015
    ...behavior may undermine a claimant's credibility. See Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2001); see also Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The ALJ pointed out plaintiff reported a history of drug use including experimenting with amphetamines. (Tr. 894.) The A......
  • McKean v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 16, 2015
    ...specific determinations at the second step concerning the non-severe impairments are of no dispositive significance); Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir.2007) (“[T]he ALJ considered any limitations posed by the [impairment] at Step 4 ... any error that the ALJ made in failing to in......
  • Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2:19-CV-1592-DMC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • March 24, 2021
    ...but considers it at subsequent steps alongside a claimant's other impairments, the error at step two is harmless. See Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007). 2. Analysis: i. Fibromyalgia: The record mentions fibromyalgia on three occasions. First, at the ALJ hearing, Plaintiff t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...2001), 9th-10, 9th-01, §§ 102.1, 104.4, 104.7, 106.4, 106.9, 107.16, 203.17, 212.10, 312.3, 316.1, 602.3, 607.1, 1106.4 Lewis v. Astrue ,498 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2007), 9th-07 Lewis v. Barnhart , 281 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2002), 9th-02 Lewis v. Barnhart , 285 F.3d 1329 (11th Ci......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • August 2, 2014
    ..., 692 F.3d 767 (7 th Cir. Aug. 28, 2012), 7 th -12 Garza v. Barnhart, 397 F.3d 1087 (8 th Cir. Feb. 15, 2005), 8 th -05 Lewis v. Astrue , 498 F.3d 909 (9 th Cir. Aug. 16, 2007), 9 th -07 § 103.5 ALJ’s Duty to Make Specific Findings Regarding Severity Craft v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 668 (7 th Cir......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...2001), 9th-10, 9th-01, §§ 102.1, 104.4, 104.7, 106.4, 106.9, 107.16, 203.17, 212.10, 312.3, 316.1, 602.3, 607.1, 1106.4 Lewis v. Astrue ,498 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2007), 9th-07 Lewis v. Barnhart , 281 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2002), 9th-02 Lewis v. Barnhart , 285 F.3d 1329 (11th Ci......
  • Case Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ..., 692 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2012), 7th-12 Garza v. Barnhart , 397 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. Feb. 15, 2005), 8th-05 Lewis v. Astrue , 498 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2007), 9th-07 § 103.5. ALJ’s Duty to Make Specific Findings Regarding Severity Craft v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. Aug. 2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT