Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mahone v. Astrue

August 2, 2010

MICHAEL MAHONE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. SUMMARY

On August 4, 2009, plaintiff Michael Mahone ("plaintiff") filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of plaintiff's application for benefits. The parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, respectively ("Plaintiff's Motion") and ("Defendant's Motion"). The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15; August 11, 2009 Case Management Order ¶ 5.

Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The findings of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") are supported by substantial evidence and are free from material error.*fn1

II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

On May 8, 2006, plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 101-04). Plaintiff asserted that he became disabled on July 1, 2005, due to heart disease. (AR 113). The ALJ examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, on November 13, 2007. (AR 30-58).

On February 14, 2008, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 21-29). Specifically, the ALJ found:

(1) plaintiff suffered from the severe impairment of coronary artery disease with a history of coronary bypass involving four vessels (AR 24); (2) plaintiff's impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments (AR 27); (3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light work (AR 27); (4) plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work (AR 28); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform (AR 28); and (6) plaintiff's allegations regarding his limitations were not fully credible. (AR 27-28).

The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review. (AR 4-6).

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Sequential Evaluation Process

To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). The impairment must render the claimant incapable of performing the work he previously performed and incapable of performing any other substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)). In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ is to follow a five-step sequential evaluation process:

(1) Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.