United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying an application for Disability Income Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"). For the reasons discussed below, the court will deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff, born April 28, 1964, applied on February 1, 2010 for DIB, alleging disability beginning April 26, 2009. Administrative Transcript ("AT") 110. Plaintiff alleged he was unable to work due to congestive heart failure, diabetes, Charcot's arthropathy of the foot, and a defibrillator. AT 126. In a decision dated August 11, 2011, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled. AT 20-27. The ALJ made the following findings (citations to 20 C.F.R. omitted):
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2013.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 26, 2009, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: cardiomyopathy status post ICD placement; diabetes mellitus; morbid obesity; and history of persistent neurotrophic ulceration of the bilateral feet, status post right third toe partial amputation and multiple debridements.
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in [the regulations] except: he must be allowed the option to alternate sitting and standing at will; he must be allowed the option to elevate his legs at will; and he could occasionally perform postural activities, except that he is unable to climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds.
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as an identification checker as he actually performed it. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity.
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from April 26, 2009, through the date of this decision.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erroneously found that he could perform ...