Carmickle v. Social Security Administration
Filed July 24, 2008
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the United States District Court, For the District of Oregon
Cite as 05-36128

Findings on Disability Insurance Benefits Remanded to the Appeals Commissioner

Ronald Carmickle, now in his fifties, has an 11th-grade education with some college classes, and his past work experience includes construction worker, auto salesperson, construction supervisor, and counter salesperson.

Sometime on July of 2001, Carmickle had met an on-the-job-accident. Carmickle had a history of neck and back injuries and chronic back pain, as determined by Dr. Ganjanan Nilaver, made a few weeks prior to his accident. On the said determination, Dr. Nilaver concluded that Carmickle would benefit from physical therapy, but that he could perform sedentary activities.

After his work injury, without mentioning his work-related accident, Carmickle went to the emergency room complaining of lower back pain. Carmickle was diagnosed with left sciatica and mild lumbar degenerative joint disease, but lumbar disc disease was ruled out.

A few months later, he was examined by Dr. Kevin Kane and Dr. Victoria Carvalho. Both doctors have issued their recommendation as to the alleged back impairment of Carmickel.

In the meantime, Carmickle filed a workers’ compensation claim with the State of Oregon based on the July 2001 accident. November of 2001, two physicians performed a joint independent medical evaluation in connection with this claim. Both doctors diagnosed multilevel lumbar degenerative disease and concluded that the lumbar strain was medically stationary, and created no permanent impairment. In his claim, Carmickle also alleges that he suffers from mental impairments.

Thereafter, Carmickle filed for Disability Insurance benefits in May 2002. In his claim he alleges disability due primarily to a back injury caused by a July 2001 on-the-job accident.

In November 2003, Carmickle had a hearing before an administrative law judge.

After the hearing, the ALJ concluded that Carmickle does have severe impairments, but that he is not entitled to disability benefits because he retains the residual functional capacity “RFC” to perform his past relevant work as a construction supervisor and counter salesperson.

August 26, 2004, Carmickle appealed before the Appeals Council, but the council denied review and adopted the ALJ’s decision as the final decision of the Commissioner.

Carmickle sought review in the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the district court affirmed the ALJ.

Ronald Carmickle then filed this appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The United States Appeals court entertains the appeal with the sole issue to ventilate, that is, whether the district court properly affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in this case.

In finding that the ALJ’s errors were not harmless, and thus, does not warrant reversal, the United States Appeals court held in these respects:

Administrative law judge's error in relying on receipt of unemployment benefits and on his relatively conservative pain treatment regimen did not negate validity of adverse credibility finding where valid reasons supporting determination were specific findings related to plaintiff's ability to perform vocational functions, it did not do so arbitrarily. The court believed that ALJ’s errors did not affect his adverse credibility finding.

ALJ did not err in rejecting medical evidence where it did not establish any work-related limitations. In analysis to determine whether plaintiff still had capacity to perform prior relevant work, ALJ's reliance on generic classifications to classify prior relevant work as being a construction supervisor and counter salesperson without making requisite factual findings to support conclusion was error.

In full, the appellate court ruled that the District Court’s decisions affirming the Commissioner’s decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part with instructions to the District Court to remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings.