United States District Court, E.D. California
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her applications for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are pending. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's motion is denied and defendant's motion is granted.
Plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and DIB on May 24, 2010, and an application for SSI on April 18, 2012. Administrative Record ("AR") 163-168, 183-195. In both applications plaintiff alleged that she had been disabled since January 1, 2008. Id. Plaintiff's claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Id. at 53-59, 61-66. On August 1, 2012 and January 14, 2013, hearings were held before administrative law judge ("ALJ") David Mazzi. Id. at 22-46. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing, at which she testified. Id.
On March 1, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff was not disabled under sections 216(i), 223(d), and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Id. at 8-16. The ALJ made the following specific findings:
1. The claimant met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2010.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2008, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq. ).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine headaches with secondary depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
* * *
4. Claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the criteria of any section of the Listing of Impairments at 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926).
* * *
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work, as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), and is able to sustain simple, repetitive tasks equating to unskilled work.
* * *
6. Claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
* * *
7. Claimant was born on December 30, 1976 and was 31 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).
8. Claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
9. 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 claimant is "not disabled, " whether or not claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
10. Considering claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569, 404.1569(a), 416.969, and 416.969(a)).
* * *
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from the alleged onset date of November 10, 2006 through the date of this decision. (20 CFR 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f)).
Id. at 13-20.
Plaintiff's request for Appeals Council review was denied on June 6, 2012, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision ...