Beltran v. Astrue
700 F.3d 386
9th Cir.2012Background
- Beltran, age 56, suffers multiple musculoskeletal and mental health conditions and alcohol abuse; she applied for SSDI/SSI with alleged onset June 30, 2000; district court granted summary judgment for Commissioner; the ALJ found no disability prior to January 9, 2006 but disabled on that date due to alcoholism; vocational expert identified 135 regional and 1,680 national surveillance system monitor jobs; the court held these numbers insufficient to find a significant number of jobs; the panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 135 regional jobs are a significant number | Beltran; 135 regional jobs are not significant given limitations | Commissioner; 135 regional jobs can be significant under precedent | 135 regional jobs not significant; remand warranted |
| Whether 1,680 national jobs across several regions are significant | Beltran would not feasibly access these jobs given limitations | Commissioner; national total can be significant if across regions | National total not significant when distributed across regions; remand warranted |
| Whether the ALJ’s factfinding on significant numbers should be given deference | Majority improperly supplants ALJ with its view | ALJ findings supported by substantial evidence | Remand based on substantial evidence standard; defer to ALJ’s conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Mathews, 546 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1976) (significant number requires more than very rare jobs; cannot rely on isolated positions)
- Barker v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 882 F.2d 1474 (9th Cir. 1989) (significant numbers determined by comparison to other cases; regional counts matter)
- Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1987) (exists in regional/national economy; hiring practices not considered)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (provides regional/national context for significant numbers)
- Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1995) (illustrates significant number benchmarks in regional contexts)
- Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 1995) (reiterates standards for significant numbers in economy analysis)