Case Summary
**Case Summary: Frohm v. Barnhart, No. 01-36007, Docket No. 7861730**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date:** Decided on March 19, 2003
**Background:**
The case of Frohm v. Barnhart involved the appellant, David Frohm, who challenged the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, Jo Anne B. Barnhart. Frohm had applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, claiming he was unable to work due to a combination of mental and physical impairments. After the Social Security Administration (SSA) denied his application, Frohm sought judicial review of the decision.
**Issue:**
The primary issue in this case was whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in finding that Frohm was not disabled under the Social Security Act and whether the ALJ appropriately considered Frohm's limitations and the medical evidence presented.
**Court Findings:**
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the ALJ's decision for substantial evidence and legal correctness, focusing on whether the ALJ had properly applied the five-step sequential evaluation process used to determine disability.
1. **Step One:** The ALJ determined Frohm was not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset of disability.
2. **Step Two:** The ALJ found Frohm had severe impairments that significantly limited his ability to perform basic work activities.
3. **Step Three:** The ALJ concluded that Frohm's impairments did not meet or equal the severity of any listed impairments in the SSA’s regulations.
4. **Residual Functional Capacity (RFC):** The ALJ assessed Frohm's RFC, concluding he could perform a range of light work with certain restrictions.
5. **Step Four and Step Five:** The ALJ determined Frohm was unable to perform his past relevant work but could adjust to other work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy, leading to the conclusion that Frohm was not disabled.
**Conclusion:**
The Ninth Circuit found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. It ruled that the ALJ did not err in evaluating the medical evidence and Frohm's subjective symptoms. The court upheld the decision of the SSA, affirming that Frohm was not entitled to SSDI benefits.
**Significance:**
This case highlights the standards for judicial review of Social Security decisions and reinforces the importance of the ALJ's analysis of medical evidence and claimant testimony in disability determinations. The decision demonstrates the court's deference to the ALJ's findings when they are supported by substantial evidence.