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.

Medina v. Colvin

United States District Court, C.D. California

January 16, 2015

FRANCISCO CAZARES MEDINA, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARGARET A. NAGLE, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on November 1, 2013, seeking review of the denial of plaintiff's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits ("DIB"). On December 9, 2013, the parties consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) On December 2, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ("Joint Stip.") in which plaintiff seeks an order reversing the Commissioner's decision and either remanding for further proceedings or awarding benefits to plaintiff. (Joint Stip. at 22.) The Commissioner requests that the ALJ's decision be affirmed or, in the alternative, that the case be remanded for further proceedings. ( Id. 23) The Court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument.

SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

On June 10, 2008, plaintiff, then 52 years old, [1] applied for a period of disability and DIB. (Administrative Record ("A.R.") 111.) Plaintiff alleged disability commencing May 1, 2008, due to seizure disorder. ( Id. 147.) Plaintiff had previously worked as a forklift operator and nursing assistant. ( Id. 33, 148.)

The Commissioner denied plaintiff's application initially (A.R.71-75) and on reconsideration (A.R. 77-80). On December 11, 2009, plaintiff requested a hearing. (A.R. 84-85.) On May 3, 2010, plaintiff, who appeared with a representative, testified before Administrative Law Judge Kevin M. McCormick ("ALJ"). (A.R. 43-59.) Martha Ramirez, plaintiff's sister, and Susan Allison, a vocational expert ("VE"), also testified. ( Id. 60-68.) On August 12, 2010, plaintiff purportedly filed a Title XVI application for supplemental social security income ("SSI").[2] ( Id. 28; see also Joint Stip. at 2.) On August 24, 2010, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision denying plaintiff's claims for both DIB and SSI. ( Id. 28-35.) On August 9, 2012, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review. ( Id. 5-10.)

SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

The ALJ found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity from his alleged onset date of May 1, 2008. (A.R. 30.) The ALJ determined that plaintiff had the severe medically determinable impairment of a seizure disorder. ( Id. ) The ALJ also concluded that plaintiff's impairment does not satisfy the requirements of a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.926). ( Id. )

The ALJ determined that plaintiff had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform "a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant can never climb ladders, rope or scaffolds and must avoid even moderate exposure to hazards (machinery, heights, etc.)." (A.R. 31.) The ALJ concluded that plaintiff was able to perform his past relevant work as a nursing assistant. ( Id. 33.) The ALJ also determined that plaintiff was able to perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. ( Id. 34 (citing by way of example the jobs of "cleaner-hospital" (DOT 323.687-010), hand packager (DOT XXX-XXX-XXX), and dining room attendant (DOT 311.677-018)).) Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled. ( Id. 35.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether it is free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Gutierrez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 522-23 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted). "Even when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the ALJ's findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record." Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012).

Although this Court cannot substitute its discretion for that of the Commissioner, the Court nonetheless must review the record as a whole, "weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the [Commissioner's] conclusion." Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health and Hum. Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). "The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities." Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995).

The Court will uphold the Commissioner's decision when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the Court may review only the reasons stated by the ALJ in his decision "and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not rely." Orn, 495 F.3d at 630; see also Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court will not reverse the Commissioner's decision if it is based on harmless error, which exists only when it is "clear from the record that an ALJ's error was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.'" Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, ...


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.