Lingenfelter v. Astrue

Decision Date04 October 2007
Docket NumberNo. 04-56934.,04-56934.
PartiesAllen G. LINGENFELTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE,<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Robert J. Timlin, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-00264-RT.

Before: ROBERT R. BEEZER, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and RICHARD A. PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge PAEZ; Dissent by Judge BEEZER.

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

Allen Lingenfelter appeals the district court's judgment affirming an Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision denying his applications for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act ("SSA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34, 1381-83f. Lingenfelter argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision because the ALJ improperly rejected his testimony as not credible. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse the judgment of the district court with instructions to remand to the ALJ for the calculation and award of appropriate benefits.1

I. Background
A. Procedural History

On August 19, 1997, Lingenfelter filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging that he had been disabled and unable to work since November 8, 1993 due to severe foot and knee impairments. After his applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration, Lingenfelter requested a hearing before an ALJ. At the January 4, 2000 hearing, Lingenfelter was represented by counsel and testified on his own behalf. The ALJ issued a decision denying Lingenfelter's applications on March 22, 2000, finding that Lingenfelter suffered from multiple severe impairments but was not disabled within the meaning of the SSA. The Appeals Council denied Lingenfelter's request for review and adopted the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner on January 13, 2003.2 Lingenfelter then filed a complaint for review with the district court, which issued an order and judgment adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and affirming the ALJ's decision. Lingenfelter timely appealed.

B. Facts

The parties do not dispute most of the relevant facts. Born on May 14, 1951, Lingenfelter was 48 years old at the time of his hearing before the ALJ. He had a high school education and worked most of his adult life as a construction worker, warehouse worker, and automobile detailer. He first underwent surgery on his left knee in 1970. He suffered a work-related injury of the same knee on November 8, 1993, which has required multiple surgeries including two knee arthroscopies in 1994 and 1996. About three years later, in November 1996, Lingenfelter started to experience significant pain in his left foot as well, and by 1997 he was experiencing severe pain in both feet.

1. Medical Reports

According to the medical reports in the administrative record, more than ten doctors, including two primary treating physicians, had examined or treated Lingenfelter prior to the hearing. The doctors had diagnosed Lingenfelter with, among other things, torn lateral and medial meniscae, significant advanced osteoarthritis, degenerative joint disease, post-polio syndrome, posterior tibial tendon rupture and tendinitis, and bilateral advanced arthrosis and planovalgus deformity.

After first injuring his left knee in 1993, Lingenfelter was examined by Doctors Tony M. Deeths and P.B. Johnson, who diagnosed osteoarthritis and cartilage damage. In February 1994, orthopaedic surgeon Marshall S. Lewis performed arthroscopic surgery on Lingenfelter's knee, which revealed "torn medial and lateral menisci with osteoarthritis of the left knee and chondromalacia." Later in 1994, following reports of continued swelling and locking of the left knee, Dr. Dilibeno examined Lingenfelter and found a "large erosive hole in the lateral tibial plateau extending down (through cartilage) to bone over the weight bearing area." He also diagnosed degenerative joint disease and determined that Lingenfelter would need a total knee replacement. On the basis of similar findings in a February 1995 examination, Dr. Daniel N. Ovadia concluded that Lingenfelter could not return to his usual work and was precluded from any prolonged standing or walking.

In 1996, Lingenfelter started seeing the first of his two primary treating physicians, knee specialist Dr. James T. Caillouette. From 1996 to 1999, Dr. Caillouette consistently reported that Lingenfelter was in pain because of his knee and feet. Following diagnostic arthroscopy, Dr. Caillouette determined that Lingenfelter's knee had "complete lateral joint collapse with bone-on-bone in the lateral joint space and significant osteophyte formation." He concluded that Lingenfelter needed a total knee replacement (arthroplasty) because of the severe pain. Dr. Caillouette also found that both of Lingenfelter's feet had experienced significant atrophy, and prescribed him a wheelchair in 1997 to help alleviate the pain. In 1998, Dr. Caillouette reported that Lingenfelter's left foot had completely collapsed. He also determined that Lingenfelter was "fully disabled from work" until he received appropriate treatment.

In 1997, Dr. Richard I. Woods examined Lingenfelter on behalf of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Lingenfelter reported to Dr. Woods that he felt constant sharp pain in his knee and feet and that "his knee stiffens up and becomes more painful after sitting for about ten minutes or holding the knee in one position for about ten minutes." Lingenfelter also reported that, because of the pain, he was unable to perform any significant activities. Dr. Woods agreed with Dr. Caillouette that Lingenfelter needed a total knee arthroplasty, as radiographs revealed advanced osteoarthritis and significant atrophy of the left thigh. He also diagnosed degenerative disorder, bilateral tibial tendinitis and rupture, and advanced arthrosis of bilateral mid feet with loss of plantar arch and collapse of the left mid foot. Dr. Woods concluded that Lingenfelter was limited to semi-sedentary work, and even then would require the use of a cane to help alleviate pain.

In 1998, Dr. Roger Sung examined Lingenfelter on behalf of the California Department of Social Services. Dr. Sung reported that "X-rays of the left knee show severe tricompartmental arthritis with significant loss of joint space both medially and laterally [along with] marked osteophyte formation." He also diagnosed "significant left knee osteoarthritis and bilateral foot planovalgus deformity." He concluded that Lingenfelter was limited in his ability to walk but could sit for a full day with appropriate breaks. Two other state agency doctors reviewed Lingenfelter's medical records and made similar findings, concluding that he could "stand and/or walk at least two hours in an eight-hour workday; sit about six hours in an eight-hour workday; [and] had limited use of the left lower extremity . . . and both feet."

Also in 1998, Dr. Stuart A. Green examined Lingenfelter and reviewed his medical records and X-rays for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Consistent with the medical record, Dr. Green reported bilateral foot and gait deformities, absent or weak tibialis posterior function, and knee atrophy, swelling, and pain. He also agreed that Lingenfelter would require knee surgery, either immediately or in the near future. Contrary to the earlier reports, however, he concluded that Lingenfelter's lower extremity impairments were the result of post-polio syndrome, "a late manifestation of poliomyelitis that affects middle age individuals." As Dr. Green reported:

What surprised me as I went through the medical records in this case is that no practitioner seems to have focused attention on what seems to me a critical aspect of this applicant's past history. Mr. Allen Lingenfelter, at the age of four, had severe poliomyelitis. He was in an iron lung for a while, and almost died.

In 1999, Lingenfelter began seeing his second primary treating physician, foot specialist Dr. Alexander Tischler. Dr. Tischler diagnosed "severe flatfoot deformity of both feet" and "arthritis of the tarsometatarsal joint," and determined that triple arthrodesis surgery was "a medical necessity." He also reported that Lingenfelter had severe knee and foot pain, which he stated "he could no longer live with." Dr. Tischler concluded that Lingenfelter was "totally disabled . . . and is really unable to do any work that requires any sitting or standing." By July 2000, Dr. Tischler reported that Lingenfelter was "mostly in a wheelchair" and that bilateral casts were the only treatment that helped to reduce his pain.

Finally, in 2001, after Lingenfelter underwent the recommended triple arthrodesis surgery, Dr. Ronald Smith diagnosed "status post hindfoot reconstruction with incomplete arthrodesis" and "severe pes planus with subtalar instability and rupture of the posterior tibial tendon." In his description of Lingenfelter's symptoms, Dr. Smith reported that some pain and swelling were always present, that he elevated his feet for relief, and that he used a wheelchair and crutches as aids for walking. Dr. Smith concluded that these "symptoms are consistent with the examination findings, history, and radiograph," and that Lingenfelter's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7492 cases
  • Young v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 29 Junio 2020
    ...about the severity of [his] symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so." Lengenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281; and citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006)).9 "This is not......
  • Geraldine C. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 30 Agosto 2021
    ... ... by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence ... Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th ... Cir. 2007) ... Discussion ... Plaintiff ... asserts the ALJ ... ...
  • Pallesi v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 11 Diciembre 2014
    ...weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's decision. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In weighing the evidence and making findings, the Commissioner must apply th......
  • Paana v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 16 Marzo 2023
    ... ... id. ; see also Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 ... F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Lingenfelter v ... Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1936 (9th Cir. 2007), and ... Gregor v. Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir ... 2006)) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 books & journal articles
  • SSR 16-3P, superseding SSR 96-7p: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claimss (Effective March 28, 2016)
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook Content
    • 4 Mayo 2020
    ...Social Security Ruling 96-7p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 4; Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-38 (9th Cir. 2007); Patrice Rusconi et al. , “Taking into Account the Observers’ Uncertainty: A Graduated Approach to the Credibility of ......
  • Issue Topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 2
    • 5 Mayo 2015
    ...to try to return to work.” Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 44 F.3d 1453, 1462 (9th Cir. 1995). In Lingenfelter v. Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1039 (9th Cir. 2007), the court drew upon the existence of trial work periods in the context of an unsuccessful work attempt. In considering w......
  • Issue topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...to try to return to work.” Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 44 F.3d 1453, 1462 (9 th Cir. 1995). In Lingenfelter v. Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1039 (9 th Cir. 2007), the court drew upon the existence of trial work periods in the context of an unsuccessful work attempt. In considering......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • 2 Agosto 2014
    ...690 (9 th Cir. Apr. 2, 1999), 9 th -99 Kangail v. Barnhart , 454 F.3d 627 (7 th Cir. July 14, 2006), 7 th -06 Lingenfelter v. Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028 (9 th Cir. Oct. 4, 2007), 9 th -07 Morales v. Apfel , 225 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2000), 3d-00 § 102.5 Return to Work as Part of “Trial Wor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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