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.

Ryan D. Wilson v. Michael J. Astrue

October 24, 2012

RYAN D. WILSON, 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, 2012, plaintiff Ryan D. Wilson ("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 18, 2012 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 because the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") failed properly to evaluate plaintiff's credibility and the Court cannot find that the ALJ's error was harmless.

II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

On February 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 134). Plaintiff asserted that he became disabled on September 19, 2001, due to multiple sclerosis, severe headaches due to blurred vision in his left eye, fatigue, uncontrollable shaking of the hands, and stinging of the feet. (AR 143). The ALJ examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by a non-attorney representative) on July 28, 2010. (AR 21, 60-84).

On September 15, 2012, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 21-27). Specifically, the ALJ found:

(1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairment: multiple sclerosis (AR 23); (2) plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments which met or medically equaled a listed impairment (AR 23); (3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work (20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b)) with certain additional limitations (AR 23); (4) plaintiff could not perform his past*fn1 relevant work (AR 25); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, specifically mail clerk, garment sorter and cashier (AR 26); and (6) plaintiff's allegations regarding his limitations were not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment (AR 24).

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

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Sequential Evaluation Process

To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that the claimant is unable "to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any 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 not less than 12 months." Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 42 U.S.C. ยง 423(d)(1)(A)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The impairment must render the claimant incapable of performing the work claimant previously performed and incapable of performing any other ...


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.