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.

Williams v. Colvin

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 2, 2014

BRUCE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

This social security action was submitted to the court without oral argument for ruling on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, plaintiff's motion is denied, defendant's cross-motion is granted, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") is affirmed.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2009, plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("the Act") alleging disability beginning on May 24, 2006. (Transcript ("Tr.") at 113.) Plaintiff's application was denied initially, (id. at 60-64), and upon reconsideration. (Id. at 68-72.) Thereafter, plaintiff requested a hearing and a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on August 1, 2011. (Id. at 30.) Plaintiff was represented by an attorney and testified at that administrative hearing. (Id. at 30-31.) In a decision issued on August 25, 2011, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled. (Id. at 25.)

The ALJ entered the following findings:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 12, 2009, the application date (20 CFR 416.971 et seq. ).
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: left rotator tendinosis; left patellofemoral syndrome; left plantar fasciitis; status post fracture of upper extremity; depressive disorder NOS; post-traumatic stress disorder traits; and borderline intellectual functioning (20 CFR 416.920(c)).
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
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 20 CFR 416.967(b) except the claimant can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally; 10 pounds frequently on the left upper extremity and no restrictions on the right upper extremity; and occasionally overhead reaching on the left. The claimant is capable of performing simple repetitive tasks in a non-public setting.
5. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965).
6. The claimant was born on July 23, 1963 and was 46 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.963).
7. The claimant has a limited education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964).
8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR 416.968).
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 (20 CFR 416.969 and 416.969(a)).
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since November 12, 2009, the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.920(g)).

(Id. at 16-24.)

On November 30, 2012, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's August 25, 2011 decision. (Id. at 1-3.) Plaintiff sought judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g) by ...


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.