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.

Gregory Clark v. Michael J. Astrue

May 24, 2012

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



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alicia G. Rosenberg United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Gregory Clark filed this action on April 18, 2011. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge on June 9, 2011 and February 27, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 15.) On February 16, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ("JS") that addressed the disputed issues. The court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument.

Having reviewed the entire file, the court remands this matter to the Commissioner for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 24, 2007, Clark filed an application for supplemental security income ("SSI"), alleging a disability onset date of July 1, 2006. Administrative Record ("AR") 16, 93-96. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 16, 64-65. On August 18, 2008, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which Clark, his daughter, and a vocational expert testified. AR 44-63. On November 25, 2008, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 13-24. On February 19, 2009, March 24, 2009, April 1, 2009, and July 6, 2010, Clark submitted additional evidence to the Appeals Council. AR 5, 434-594. On January 10, 2011, the Appeals Counsel denied Clark's request for review. AR 2-5. This action followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court reviews the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, or if it is based upon the application of improper legal standards. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).

"Substantial evidence" means "more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance -- it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion." Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. In determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner's decision, the court examines the administrative record as a whole, considering adverse as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. When the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the court must defer to the Commissioner's decision. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Disability

A person qualifies as disabled, and thereby eligible for such benefits, "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 21-22, 124 S. Ct. 376, 157 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

B. The ALJ's Findings

The ALJ found that Clark had the severe impairments of depression and personality disorder. AR 18. Clark had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels. He had "mild-to moderate limitations in understanding and remembering tasks, sustaining concentration and persistence, socially interacting with the general public and adapting to workplace changes." Id. Clark has no past relevant work, but there are jobs that exist in ...


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.