Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8688242
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Mullan v. Astrue
No. 8688242 · Decided August 8, 2008
No. 8688242·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
August 8, 2008
Citation
No. 8688242
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
*533 MEMORANDUM ** Patrick Mullan Jr. appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Mullan’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We affirm the Commissioner’s decision because it is supported by substantial evidence, and the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. . See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) applied the five-step sequential analysis mandated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 . Mullan does not challenge the conclusions reached at Steps One and Two. At Step Three, Mullan failed to demonstrate that his combination of impairments met or equaled an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. At Step Four, the ALJ properly found that Mullan retained the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as a chemical dependency counselor. Because Step Five is required only where a claimant cannot perform his past relevant work, the ALJ properly decided not to proceed to this step. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a)(4)(iv). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Mullan’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
Key Points
01appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Mullan’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
02We affirm the Commissioner’s decision because it is supported by substantial evidence, and the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.
03The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) applied the five-step sequential analysis mandated by 20 C.F.R.
04Mullan does not challenge the conclusions reached at Steps One and Two.
Frequently Asked Questions
appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Mullan’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Mullan v. Astrue in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on August 8, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8688242 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.