Unpublished Disposition, 879 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Daniel M. Riley appeals from a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The decision upheld a judgment by an administrative law judge that Riley was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, and therefore was not entitled to Supplemental Security Income. Our review is limited to a determination of whether the administrative judgment is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Riley argues that the ALJ erred in disregarding the testimony of a psychological expert who concluded that Riley was severely disabled. Several neurologists disagreed with this characterization, and the ALJ carefully stated his reasons for crediting their testimony. "Under the substantial evidence standard of review, [a reviewing court] must affirm [if] there is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion ... even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence." St. Elizabeth Community Hospital v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir. 1984).

Riley next argues that the ALJ erred in interpreting Riley's responses to test questions differently than had the expert who administered the test. The ALJ's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence in the form of conclusions reached elsewhere in the expert's report.

Finally, Riley argues that the ALJ erred in considering a student custodial job as evidence of Riley's "prior relevant work." In order to qualify as prior relevant work experience, an activity must be "substantial" and "gainful." See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.965(a). In a report submitted in connection with his application for benefits, Riley stated that he was a "student custodian, 8th grade public school, 3 months--5 days per week." Riley did not check any of a series of boxes indicating whether and how much he was paid for this work. We are unable to review the ALJ's determinations about Riley's prior relevant work without a clearer record. We therefore remand for a redetermination of Riley's prior relevant work history, and for the entry of supporting factual findings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.