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 applications for Disability Income Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"), respectively. For the reasons discussed below, the court will grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, deny the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand this matter under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for immediate payment of benefits.
Plaintiff, born December 21, 1984, applied for DIB and SSI, alleging disability beginning January 1, 1992. Administrative Transcript ("AT") 14, 227-241, 253. Plaintiff alleged he was unable to work due to mental impairments. In a decision dated June 20, 2013, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled. AT 14-27. 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 March 31, 2010.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 1992, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
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, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant could understand, remember, and carry out very short and simple instructions. He could make judgments on very simple work related decisions. He could interact appropriately with supervisors. He could occasionally interact with the public. He could work in an environment with coworkers so long as the job tasks do not require coordination with co-workers and he could work independently. He could respond appropriately to the usual work situations and changes in a routine work setting.
6. The claimant has no past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on December 21, 1984 and was 7 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date.
8. The claimant has at least a high-school education and is able to communicate in English.
9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case because the claimant does not have past relevant work.
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the ...