UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 2, 2011
DEBORAH HAMILTON, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ralph Zarefsky United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Deborah Hamilton asserts that this matter must be remanded to the Commissioner for a fourth time because the Administrative Law Judge committed two errors.
Taking the second assertion first, Plaintiff asserts that the Administrative Law Judge did not comply with the Appeals Council's order of remand. This, however, is an internal administrative matter, to be taken up with the Appeals Council. The Court reviews whether the Commissioner has complied with the law in determining disability vel non, not whether one part of the agency has properly implemented what an administrative appellate body ordered.
Plaintiff also asserts that the Administrative Law Judge failed to properly consider if she meets and/or equals listing 1.02A of the Listing of Impairments. She argues that, based on the residual functional capacity, she cannot ambulate effectively, one of the key components of the listing. But, although she points to some evidence in the record of difficulty in walking, she does not point to any evidence that she must use an assistive device that limits the functioning of both upper extremities, and that is a requirement in the definition of "inability to ambulate effectively." 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P., App. 1 §1.00(B)(2)(b).
Plaintiff also appears to argue that the Administrative Law Judge did not consider whether she equaled the listing, but provides no explanation of how she might have equaled the listing. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (claimant must offer a plausible theory of how claimant's combination of impairments equals a listing before the failure to consider the issue will beerror).
There being no basis for the assertions of legal error, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed concurrently herewith.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.