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 Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI 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 June 11, 1972, applied on September 24, 2010 for SSI, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2005. Administrative Transcript ("AT") 154. Plaintiff alleged she was unable to work due to pituitary tumor, polycystic ovarian syndrome, cyst on right ovary, Epstein-Barr virus, endometriosis, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic anxiety disorder, paranoia, sleep disorder, and depression. AT 157. In a decision dated April 27, 2012, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled. AT 15-24. The ALJ made the following findings (citations to 20 C.F.R. omitted):
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 24, 2010, the application date.
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: non-cancerous pituitary tumor, and polycystic ovarian syndrome, cyst on right ovary, fibromyalgia with Epstein-Barr virus, and endometriosis.
3. At no time relevant did claimant 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.
4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work [as defined in the regulations] except claimant cannot climb ladder/rope/scaffolds, she is limited to occasional stooping, crouching, crawling, or kneeling. She [is] limited to only occasional exposure to direct sunlight.
5. The claimant has no past relevant work.
6. The claimant was born on June 11, 1972 and was 38 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was filed.
7. The claimant has at least a high-school education and is able to communicate in English.
8. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is "not disabled" whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills.
9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since September 24, 2010, the ...