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.

Kenneth Warren v. Michael J. Astrue

February 14, 2011

KENNETH WARREN, 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 AND ORDER OF REMAND

I. SUMMARY

On May 14, 2010, plaintiff Kenneth Warren ("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; May 19, 2010 Case Management Order ¶ 5.

Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order of Remand.

II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION On December 5, 2007, plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental

Security Income benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 125-27). Plaintiff asserted that he became disabled on August 31, 2006, due to paranoia, schizophrenia, blurred vision, arthritis, high blood pressure and trouble with his big toes. (AR 125, 135).

On November 24, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 9-20). Specifically, the ALJ found: (1) plaintiff suffers from the following severe impairments: psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified; anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; and borderline intellectual functioning (AR 11); (2) plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments (AR 12); (3) plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with certain non-exertional limitations (AR 14); (4) plaintiff cannot perform his *fn1past relevant work (AR 18); and (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, such as dishwasher, cleaner and landscape worker (AR19).

The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review. (AR 1-3).

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. If not, proceed to step two.

(2) Is the claimant's alleged impairment sufficiently severe to limit his ability to work? If not, the claimant is not ...


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.