Vasquez v. Astrue
Filed November 5, 2008, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Cite as 06-16817

Disabled Worker’s Appeal on SSDI and SSI Claims, Reversed and Remanded

Priscilla Vasquez, a housekeeper, applied for social security disability insurance (SSDI) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits in 1997. Two years before that, she had stopped working due to “low back pain and other musculoskeletal impairments”.

However, during hearing, Administrative law judge (ALJ) Richard Stacy found that Vasquez was not disabled and her application was denied. The decision discussed Vasquez’s back injuries and limited education but not the cognitive impairment she suffered because Vasquez did not raise that issue in her application.

Vasquez filed a new application again citing her inability to work and this time she mentioned her “cognitive impairments resulting in significant learning problems”.

A hearing was granted and still, the ALJ ruled that Vasquez was not disabled and in fact, according to the judge, she had “the residual function capacity to perform light exceptional work activity”. In addition, the ALJ ruled that Vasquez’s cognitive impairments were not as severe to affect her residual function capacity.

As a result, Vasquez asked the SSA Appeals Council for review and presented additional evidence to support her claims of cognitive impairment. Vasquez submitted the psychological tests on her, conducted by Dr Ubaldo Sanchez.

After review, the Appeals Council did not change the ALJ’s decision despite the additional evidence presented.

Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the SSA Commissioner and affirmed the denial of claims. Vasquez made an appeal.

After review, the Ninth Circuit appeals court ruled that the SSA Commissioner should have accepted the claimant’s pain testimony under the “credit-as-true rule” as the ALJ had failed to “articulate sufficient reasons for refusing to credit the testimony, even though application of the rule would not result in the immediate payment of benefits”. The appeals court therefore vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded.