United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division
For Norma Andrea Gomez Haverstock, Plaintiff: John M Fitzgerald, LEAD ATTORNEY, Lelbovic Law Group, Sherman Oaks, CA.
For Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of SSA, Defendant: Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-CV, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-SSA, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the General Counsel for Social Security Adm., San Francisco, CA; Timothy R Bolin, SAUSA - Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel Region IX, San Francisco, CA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VICTOR B. KENTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
(Social Security Case)
This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which authorizes the Court to enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before the Commissioner. The parties have filed the Joint Stipulation (" JS"), and the Commissioner has filed the certified Administrative Record (" AR").
Plaintiff raises the following issues:
1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge (" ALJ") erred in determining that Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments of depression and anxiety are not severe;
2. Whether the ALJ gave proper weight to Plaintiff's treating physician; and
3. Whether the ALJ included all of Plaintiff's impairments when assessing Plaintiff's residual functional capacity.
(JS at 3.)
This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.
THE ALJ DID NOT ERR IN FINDING THAT IMPAIRMENTS OF DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY ARE NOT SEVERE
Following administrative denials of Plaintiff's October 20, 2011 application for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits (" DIB"), Plaintiff requested and received a hearing before an ALJ on October 15, 2012. (AR 31-62.) At that hearing, Plaintiff was represented by counsel, and testified, and in addition, the ALJ took testimony from a Vocational Expert (" VE").
Thereafter, on November 8, 2012, the ALJ issued an unfavorable Decision (AR 18-26), following which Plaintiff submitted additional evidence to the Appeals Council, which, in a March 4, 2014 Notice of Appeals Council ...