United States District Court, E.D. California
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are pending. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's motion is granted, defendant's motion is denied, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for a period of disability and DIB on September 15, 2009, alleging that she had been disabled since September 15, 2009. Administrative Record ("AR") 66, 151-154. Her application was initially denied on December 14, 2009, and upon reconsideration on February 19, 2010. Id. at 72-75, 78-82. On April 7, 2011, a hearing was held before administrative law judge ("ALJ") Laura S. Havens. Id. at 46-65. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearings, at which she and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. Id.
On July 27, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff was not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Act. Id. at 23-31. The ALJ made the following specific findings:
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 September 15, 2009, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq. ).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, low back pain, and right arm pain (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).
* * *
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 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.156).
* * *
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) except she is limited to simple repetitive tasks.
* * *
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a stock clerk and as a warehouse worker. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565).
* * *
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from September 15, 2009, through the date of ...