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 his application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title 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.
On March 3, 2008, plaintiff filed an application for SSI. Administrative Record ("AR") 113-119. Plaintiff previously received SSI under Title XVI of the Act as a disabled child based on a finding that he was disabled since March 31, 2003. Id. at 19, 213. As required by section 1614(a)(3)(H) of the Act, plaintiff's eligibility for these benefits was redetermined under the rules for determining disability in adults after he attained age 18. On January 15, 2010, it was determined that plaintiff was no longer disabled as of January 1, 2010. Id. at 90-93. This determination was upheld upon reconsideration. Id. at 87-89. On January 14, 2011, a hearing was held before administrative law judge ("ALJ") Stanley Hogg. Id. at 36-56. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing, at which he and a third-party witness testified. Id.
On June 29, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff was not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A). Id. at 19-28. The ALJ made the following specific findings:
1. The claimant attained age 18 on August 9, 2009, and was eligible for supplemental security income benefits as a child for the month preceding the month in which he attained age 18. The claimant was notified that he was found no longer disabled as of December 2010, based on a redetermination of disability under the rules for adults who file new applications (20 CFR 416.920(c)).
2. Since January 1, 2010, the claimant has had the following severe impairment(s): dysthymic and mood disorders (20 CFR 416.920(c)).
3. Since January 1, 2010, the claimant did 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 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
* * *
4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that since January 1, 2010, the claimant has had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant cannot perform complex or detailed tasks, and is limited to the performance of unskilled work.
* * *
5. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965).
6. The claimant was born on August 10, 1991 and is a younger individual age 18-49 (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. Since January 1, 2010, 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's disability ended on January 1, 2010, and the claimant has not become disabled again since that date (20 CFR 416.987(e) and 416.920(g).
Id. at 21-28.
Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ's decision, id. at 15, and on May 17, 2013, the Appeals Council denied review, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner. Id. at 1-7.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
The Commissioner's decision that a claimant is not disabled will be upheld if the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record and the proper legal standards were applied. Schneider v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2000); Morgan v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 ...