FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL H. RIMLAND, No. 08-56148
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02490-JLS-LSP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 31, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit
Judges.
The ALJ appropriately gave more weight to the medical expert’s testimony
than to observations made by Rimland’s father. See, e.g., Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
page 2
503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001) (“One reason for which an ALJ may discount lay
testimony is that it conflicts with medical evidence.”). But the expert’s testimony
established that Rimland’s functional capacity is extremely limited during periods
of sickness that occur about four times per year. Even though at least one medical
report supports Rimland’s claim that the attacks can last for several weeks, the
vocational expert didn’t testify as to whether they affect Rimland’s ability to
perform his past relevant work. The ALJ must address that narrow issue on
remand. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).
The evidence adequately supported a finding that Rimland’s medical
conditions are otherwise under control and, apart from the periodic attacks, would
leave him with sufficient functional capacity to perform his past relevant work. Id.
§ 404.1520(f).
REMANDED.