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.

Chao v. Colvin

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 16, 2015

PHOUONE CHAO, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying an application for Disability Income Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"). For the reasons discussed below, the court will deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, born September 18, 1956, applied on June 1, 2009 for DIB, alleging disability beginning January 2, 2009. Administrative Transcript ("AT") 185. Plaintiff alleged he was unable to work due to poor vision, diabetes, kidney problems and high blood pressure. AT 206. In a decision dated May 8, 2012, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled.[1] AT 30-40. The ALJ made the following findings (citations to 20 C.F.R. omitted):

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 January 2, 2009, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: a cognitive disorder, an adjustment disorder, diabetes mellitus with retinopathy, psoriasis, and hepatitis.
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.
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: he must avoid concentrated exposure to workplace hazards such as unprotected machinery and unprotected heights. He is limited to occupations that require only occasional near acuity. Work is limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks, involving only simple work-related decisions, with few, if any workplace changes.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on September 18, 1956, and was 52 years old, which is defined as an individual closely approaching advanced age, on the alleged disability onset date.
8. The claimant has a marginal education and is able to communicate in English.
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 the claimant is "not disabled, " whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills.
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the ...

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.