Bruce v. Astrue
Filed March 5, 2009
Ninth Circuit
Cite as 0635529

SSI and DBI Claimant’s Denial of Appeal Reversed and Remanded

Jerry Bruce suffered from a severe degenerative joint disease in his right hip and became a disabled following an accident in June 1997. This also caused him severe depression. Because of this, he filed claims for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

The Social Security Administration denied the claims initially and during reconsideration.

After this, Bruce requested a hearing with administrative law judge (ALJ). During the hearing, his wife, Cindy, appeared. She testified that since the accident, Bruce’s life and his ability to work had been severely affected. Cindy said that because of the impairment, Bruce sometimes refused to leave the bedroom, bathe or eat. He suffered from severe depression due to his condition and on most days, he would spend an hour or two lying down on bed.

In addition to this, a vocational expert also testified and he told the ALJ that Bruce could perform work “for certain unskilled jobs available in the national economy”. However, he noted that Bruce’s absence from the workplace for two or more days would disqualify him from gainful employment at any job.

Thus, the ALJ noted the following facts and made these conclusions:

• That Bruce suffered from degenerative joint disease of the right hip, depression with anxiety and a personality disorder


• That his residual functional capacity barred him from returning to his past relevant work


• That he is capable of making an adjustment to other unskilled jobs

Bruce disagreed with the findings of the ALJ. He argued that the ALJ erred in saying that he could perform other work and rejected the testimony of his wife, Cindy.

As a result, the district court upheld the decision of the SSA to deny disability benefits to Bruce.

During review, the Ninth Circuit court of appeal had set out to determine the following:

• Whether the decision is free of legal error


• Whether the decision is supported by substantial

Further, the court held that in determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider lay witness testimony concerning a claimant’s ability to work. The court also cited that the testimony is competent and cannot be disregarded. (Stout v. Comm’r, 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. sections 404.1513(d)(4), (e).

After review, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the ALJ failed to “adequately address competent lay witness testimony favorable to Bruce. Hence, it reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the issue to the court.