Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Papen v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Citation: 349 F. App'x 205Docket: No. 08-35719
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 21, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
April Papen appeals the district court’s affirmation of the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of her disability benefits application. The appellate court affirms, stating that its review mirrors that of the district court, focusing on whether the ALJ's decision is supported by "substantial evidence," defined as more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance. Papen waived her argument regarding the rejection of Dr. Barlow's testimony, as it was raised for the first time on appeal, a practice the court generally does not entertain unless exceptional circumstances exist, which are not present in her case. She also waived her argument concerning the ALJ's finding that her impairments, aside from obesity, did not meet a specific listing, for the same reasons. The ALJ properly assessed the impact of Papen's obesity on her functional capabilities, supported by medical records indicating she could perform basic work activities despite her impairments. The court outlines a two-step process for evaluating claims of medical impairment, noting that Papen’s testimony was inconsistent with her past work and daily activities, leading the ALJ to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting her claims. Papen also waived her argument regarding the ALJ's hypothetical to vocational experts, failing to raise it at the district court level. The ALJ's determination of Papen's residual functional capacity (RFC) was based on relevant medical evidence, concluding she could perform her past relevant work at a sedentary exertion level. Vocational experts corroborated this assessment. The court affirms the decision, specifying the disposition is not suitable for publication or precedent.