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.

Dixon v. Colvin

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 28, 2016

KIM REGINA DIXON, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, born September 23, 1964, applied for SSI benefits on June 7, 2012, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2012. Administrative Transcript (“AT”) 27, 40, 62-63, 72-74, 83, 147-56, 170. Plaintiff alleged she was unable to work due to high blood pressure, arthritis, gout, and acid reflux. AT 62. In a decision dated May 30, 2014, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled.[1] AT 24-30. The ALJ made the following findings (citations to 20 C.F.R. omitted):

1. The claimant has not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) since June 7, 2012, the application date.
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: obesity, asthma, left knee disorder, hypertension, and right shoulder disorder with decreased range of motion, and disorder of the back.
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform a wide range of light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b). She can lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand and/or walk 4 hours in an 8-hour workday, sit 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, use of left lower extremity for foot control operation is limited to frequent, never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, occasionally climb ramps or stairs, crouch, or kneel, and frequently crawl and reach overhead. In addition, she must avoid moderate exposure to pulmonary irritants and poorly ventilated areas.
5. The claimant cannot perform any Past Relevant Work (PRW).
6. The claimant was born on September 23, 1964 and was 47 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was filed.
7. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English.
8. 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 transferrable job skills.
9. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and Residual Functional Capacity (RFC), there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the National Economy that the claimant can perform.
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since June 7, 2012, the date ...

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.